# Fukushima? comments! facts! myths!



## steyr223

Just curios
Dont get much news (real news) of whars going on
They say 14000 deaths in america already? Dont know.
I watched a broadcast on the storage tanks used to house the sea water they pump through the 1 that whent bad to cool it down and you can see the thousands of tanks from space they cant keep up .
Soon if not already they will have to release the water back in the ocean
I am sure they will lie

What country do you come from and what does your news tell you

Thanks steyr223 rob


----------



## Geo

the Japanese are going to spend billions of dollars to build whats called a "frozen earth containment cell" around the whole plant. they will run tubing up to a half mile deep and in a full circle around the effected area and then set up continuous pumps to pump a coolant through the pipes. this will freeze the ground water (and thus the earth) around the plant preventing any more radioactive water from leaking into the ground water. its been done before but not on that scale. the pumps will have to pump continuously for the next several hundred years.


----------



## 9kuuby9

I somewhere read that their are "hotspot's" where radiation assemble together in one spot, aperently their are a lot of towns/cities in Europe near nuclear reactors where the Geiger counter gives a higher count than in Fukushima Daiichi. :shock: And not" Fukashima"


----------



## steyr223

Thanks geo 
Now is that just the(3 i think)that are going to be temporary fixed or all of the rods 
Or are the rods a whole different problem

They we're talking about how the Japanese would try to move I think 1500 Rods and if only one of them touch the other it would send the whole place critical

And the weather ,1 good typhoon,
I wonder how secure their new system will be

9kuuby9 
Apparantly in Europe they must have the right attitude or is it just to small to make headlines.
Any 3 eyed children being born :shock: 

Thanks steyr223


----------



## justme2

steyr223 said:


> Thanks geo
> Now is that just the(3 i think)that are going to be temporary fixed or all of the rods
> Or are the rods a whole different problem
> 
> They we're talking about how the Japanese would try to move I think 1500 Rods and if only one of them touch the other it would send the whole place critical
> 
> And the weather ,1 good typhoon,
> I wonder how secure their new system will be
> 
> 9kuuby9
> Apparantly in Europe they must have the right attitude or is it just to small to make headlines.
> Any 3 eyed children being born :shock:
> 
> Thanks steyr223


Seems like a lot of things are too small to talk about these days, but, it seems to me that's how we got where we are now.


----------



## CBentre

I hate to say this but from what I understand the whole situation has been kept in the dark for far too long. I've heard rumors it's still leaking as of a two months ago, contaminated fish have been caught and sold, U.S. navy personnel are coming forward with cancer related illnesses. Products built in Japan are being rejected because of radiation levels. There has also been suggestions to to nuke the site and incinerate it into "nothingness". I personally don't try to watch main stream media, I will from time to time but rather get a different perspective on whats really going on. It really is an unfortunate event that will have a ever lasting effect on us all. Some good will come from it but what those people had to endure is horrific and I would never wish something of that nature on any living soul.


----------



## steyr223

It.is definitely ashame but i believe all of
Us will emdure the same sometime very soon

I think in the past this is where mother earth says enough
And a natural catastrophe occurs 

Of course thats probaly not before our government sends another Tsunami towards japan

Steyr223 rob
Sometimes you just got to look up and say really!


----------



## Anonymous

Well this is an interesting topic. There's one thing that nobody tells you in the US. 

In the event of a world catastrophe and loss of power, for example one of these doomsday viruses or anything like that, there will be no US within a few months because all the reactors will firstly go into failsafe, and after the generators run out they will all go into meltdown and effectively nuke the whole eastern seaboard. The fallout will take just a couple of months to cover the whole country. 

It's not just the US of course it's worldwide but I mention the Us in the context of the thread. 

So forget all these post apocalyptic survival programs on TV - we'll nuke ourselves worldwide without firing a weapon.


----------



## CBentre

That is and always has been one of the greatest fears of playing with fire. An emp or large enough asteroid potentially could do that. Some countries have already started reducing their dependency on nuclear power as a result of the disaster in Japan but others are increasing because of coal related issues. What I don't understand is why Japan has so many when they are in an area that is highly active with earthquake activity. That truly is beyond me.


----------



## steyr223

most people in the US don't even know how many nuclear reactors we really have that are active

I found a website that showed in the 100's
Not just the three ithat were greatly advertised

Sheep all sheep bahabaha
Steyr223 rob


----------



## macfixer01

http://www.cfact.org/2013/10/12/physicist-there-was-no-fukushima-nuclear-disaster/

A couple of the more interesting facts:

"Firstly let us get something clear. There was no Fukushima nuclear disaster. Total number of people killed by nuclear radiation at Fukushima was zero. Total injured by radiation was zero. Total private property damaged by radiation….zero. There was no nuclear disaster. What there was, was a major media feeding frenzy fuelled by the rather remote possibility that there may have been a major radiation leak."

"Amazingly the thousands of people killed by the tsunami in the neighbouring areas who were in shops, offices, schools, at the airport, in the harbour and elsewhere are essentially ignored while there is this strange continuing phobia about warning people of ‘the dangers of Fukushima.’ We need to ask the more general question: did anybody die because of Fukushima? Yes they did. Why? The Japanese government introduced a forced evacuation of thousands of people living up to a couple of dozen kilometres from the power station. The stress of moving to collection areas induced heart attacks and other medical problems in many people. So people died because of Fukushima hysteria not because of Fukushima radiation."

"Recently some water leaked out of the Fukushima plant. It contained a very small amount of radioactive dust. The news media quoted the radiation activity in the physics measure of miliSieverts. The public don’t know what a Sievert or a milliSievert is. As it happens a milliSievert is a very small measure. Doubling a very small amount is still inconsequential. It is like saying: “Yesterday there was a matchstick on the football field; today there are two matchsticks on the football field. Matchstick pollution has increased by a massive 100% in only 24 hours.” The statement is mathematically correct but silly and misleading."


----------



## CBentre

http://m.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2014/03/12/japan-may-soon-dump-hundreds-of-thousands-of-tons-of-radioactive-water-into-the-ocean/

Sure go ahead and sweep it under the carpet. Obay your teachers folks, and remember your government's and politicians would never lie to you. Let's just let them dump what ever they want into the ocean. We wont be around long enough, and who really cares about the future generations....


----------



## Palladium

I'm not even going to justify that dumb article and to say that no one has died or is going to die from it is absurd.


----------



## steyr223

Just remember corruption at every level(he who controls the media can make the world
Believe anything)
It is commonly believed tbere are 2 groups ,those who are for 
And those who are against, Or the yes and no ,you could even say good and bad
But i had a customer show me there is a third group always envolved but is never seen

2 of these groups even tho they may oppose each other is actually guiding all of us to the third.

Nobody is to be trusted :mrgreen: 

Thanks for all input 
Steyr223 rRob


----------



## CBentre

Dr Kelvin Kemm is the CEO of Nuclear Africa, a nuclear project management company based in Pretoria, South Africa.

Yeah he doesn't have any special interest in hiding the truth.Everything is just fine, the sky is blue and the birds are chirping. Oh and there's no kids in Africa using mercury to get gold from their electronics. That's just a myth too, I hope you can see my sarcasm in full force here.


----------



## patnor1011

I will start a fundraiser to pay for 2 week long vacation on Fukushima coast for this south african good doctor. This holiday with all inclusive locally produced food & drinks will be perfect opportunity for him to observe and experience zero effects of radiation on human body. That will include first class plane tickets too.


----------



## CBentre

I totally agree patnor. I'll pay for his shorts and sandals personally out of my own pocket. He can hang out at the site, it would be like a beach party. There's no need for protective gear because the disaster never happened.


----------



## 4metals

I have worked as a chemist my entire working career my interest in this is solely from a scientific fact perspective. However I am an advocate of nuclear power as I think it is part of the ultimate solution to our global warming problems. Fukushima has thrown a large monkey wrench into the debate over nuclear safety and because of this I happen to have read on this issue heavily and may be able to offer my opinion on this issue from my little corner of the world. 

First off there is radiation all over the Pacific Ocean, some undoubtedly is from the Fukushima accident and some remains from nuclear testing done many years ago and some rises up naturally from deep within the core of the earth. But there are many types of radiation and they all exhibit something called a half life. What a half life is, is the decay of a radioactive atom giving off radiation as it works its way to a stable form where radiation is no longer emitted. Every atom that is a potential source of radiation has a specific half life, or the time it takes for the atom to give off half of its radiation. The studies done of radiation in the oceans are looking for cesium-134 and cesium-137 as both were given off in the Fukushima event. The thing is the cesium-134 has a half life of 2 years, cesium-137 stays around much much longer. If they were to find cesium-134 it is a definite smoking gun and Fukushima would definitely be the culprit. So while they have detected some radiation it is all cesium-137 and they have yet to detect any cesium-134. If the source were Fukushima, they would detect both. 

Then there is the fact that the levels detected are well below the EPA drinking water standards anyway. The beautifully colored charts I have seen show an ominously colored cloud working its way across the Pacific as it leaves its traces of radiation in its wake. If you look further you can see that the units of these graphs are a unit called a Becquerel which is a measurement of radioactive decay per second typically per cubic meter of water. The EPA puts the drinking water limit for this radiation at 7000 something Becquerels, the graphs are showing this cloud moving along and the concentration is a low of 7.5 and a high at 100. Don't get me wrong, the EPA number isn't something I would be using for shower water should it approach the 7000 limit but even at 100 Bq/M3 is less than 1.5% of the EPA limit. The EPA is NEVER that far off. 

In addition to the effects of the water borne radiation you should check out something much closer to home which is called the Denver Dose. It turns out that Denver Colorado has a particularly high natural radioactivity emitted from naturally occurring uranium in the rock. People living in Denver get an extra dose of 300 millirem per year. Figures reported from Fukushima were using the units of millisieverts so using the same figures the good people of Denver get a dose of 3 millisieverts per year just from living in Denver. After the Fukushima disaster, newspapers reported levels of 1 millisievert per year and considered that a hot spot. 1 millisievert is in excess of what required mandatory evacuation from Chernobyl. But the odd thing is that the good people of Denver have a lower cancer rate than the average city in the US. So what does that 1 millisievert mean? I am a science guy, I believe in data, good data from reliable sources which can be scientifically verified. The Denver dose is an example of what everyday Americans that we can relate to live with every day with no apparent effect. And there is a long standing background of analytics to back this up. Unfortunately policy and regulatory levels can be made up of hype which cannot be backed up with good science. 

This is one of those topics that newspapers love to print but the reality of it is that the real issue with nuclear power plants is what to do with their waste. The releases at Fukushima were largely from the spent nuclear waste storage that lost its supply of cooling water. Here in the US we have spent billions of taxpayer dollars developing Yucca mountain to deal with the waste and have since come up with every reason under the sun not to use it. We should use the best available science to find a safe way to store this type of waste and a way to transport it there and allow the nuclear plants to be built to produce power with no carbon emissions. The science supports nuclear as a green alternative, the sensationalists, well they just piss me off!


----------



## g_axelsson

Very well written 4metals, I totally agree with you and have advocated nuclear power as the best source of large scale power production to combat global warming for years.

I'm living in an area where some fall out from Chernobyl ended up. For many years we measured the cesium in fish, mushroom, reindeer meat and berries to keep track of the levels. It turns out some living thing concentrates the cesium so for a long time we didn't pick mushrooms, but now everything is back to normality again.
When the measurements started scientists also discovered that there was a large amount of cesium left by the atmospheric testing of nuclear bombs, we had already lived through a period of high background radiation. (Atmospheric testing ended in 1963, Chernobyl blew up in 1986)

It was really interesting to learn about the Denver effect, didn't know that.

Göran


----------



## glorycloud

Thank you 4metals. That was refreshing. A sensible, non media driven, non hyped up look
at the facts. Refreshing indeed! 8)


----------



## rickbb

Geo said:


> the Japanese are going to spend billions of dollars to build whats called a "frozen earth containment cell" around the whole plant. they will run tubing up to a half mile deep and in a full circle around the effected area and then set up continuous pumps to pump a coolant through the pipes. this will freeze the ground water (and thus the earth) around the plant preventing any more radioactive water from leaking into the ground water. its been done before but not on that scale. the pumps will have to pump continuously for the next several hundred years.



Lets hope those pumps are better designed than the ones that were supposed to keep the reactors cool in the first place.


----------



## g_axelsson

I don't think there were a problem with the pumps. The problem was only 10 meter high tsunami walls when it was hit by the 14 meter high wave, drowning the back-up power supply.

Göran


----------



## Geo

In my visions of the future, instead of paying for electricity for a lifetime, people can buy a lifetime of electricity at one time. Materials that give off electrons when stimulated by a tiny grain of radioactive material can be encased in a container and can be "plugged into" a receiving port where it closes the circuit and the electrons flow. It could be like an investment. The same power cell can be handed down to children or grandchildren. Pay once for a lifetime of power. These fuel cells will be constructed of materials that will literally self destruct if the canister is ever opened to ensure that the fuel could not be used to make a weapon. Smaller cells to operate all sorts of things including your automobile. Probably the most expensive thing someone could buy short of a home. Of coarse for those that cant afford to buy, you can always "rent" a unit from the many outlets that supply them.


----------



## solar_plasma

Geo said:


> In my visions of the future, instead of paying for electricity for a lifetime, people can buy a lifetime of electricity at one time. Materials that give off electrons when stimulated by a tiny grain of radioactive material can be encased in a container and can be "plugged into" a receiving port where it closes the circuit and the electrons flow. It could be like an investment. The same power cell can be handed down to children or grandchildren. Pay once for a lifetime of power. These fuel cells will be constructed of materials that will literally self destruct if the canister is ever opened to ensure that the fuel could not be used to make a weapon. Smaller cells to operate all sorts of things including your automobile. Probably the most expensive thing someone could buy short of a home. Of coarse for those that cant afford to buy, you can always "rent" a unit from the many outlets that supply them.



...remembers me to my H3 watch, - a lifetime supply of light (20 years at least), when I wake up at night, I can even use it like a weak torch and the light is strong enough to produce a 50cm diameter light spot on a white wall in 1m distance.


----------



## steyr223

But but wait its all a conspiracy and you're all involved too.. :lol: 

Thanks 4metals my buddy wont take this well but if you
Say its so and i know you researched and did your homework then thats good enough for me

That right there folks is the best part if this wonderful forum for any misinformation that gets said ,somebody will always comment untill the real information comes out

Thanks everyone steyr223 rob

Ps we really dont have to worry about destroying the planet (the e.t.'s wont let us)


----------



## CBentre

Come on that's just not fair, I didn't comment back for argument sake. I've been busy ........


----------



## solar_plasma

steyr223 said:


> Thanks geo
> 
> ........
> 
> 9kuuby9
> Apparantly in Europe they must have the right attitude or is it just to small to make headlines.
> Any 3 eyed children being born :shock:
> 
> Thanks steyr223



In fact, as far as I have seen in some tv reports, in short distance around some atomic plants there has been counted significantly more cases of juvenile blood cancer, but not around all. They could not find evidence for any causal relationship. But since 10 or 20 years we have dose rate measuring devices at a distance to each other of 10-15km all over the country. They can be examined by everyone:

http://odlinfo.bfs.de/


----------



## Geo

There was an extraordinary large amount of a certain birth defect in a small area of the city I live in awhile back. It was concluded that an underground fuel tank from a service station that no longer existed was leaking into the ground. Since the tank was on top of a small hill, the contamination seeped down and covered an area of about four city blocks and was estimated to have been leaking while still in service starting back in the 50s. Benzene levels from core samples taken from as far away as a half mile from the leak was almost a thousand times what is acceptable. Benzene is a carcinogen and powerful mutagen. It's not only radioactive contamination that worries me.


----------



## macfixer01

solar_plasma said:


> steyr223 said:
> 
> 
> 
> Thanks geo
> 
> ........
> 
> 9kuuby9
> Apparantly in Europe they must have the right attitude or is it just to small to make headlines.
> Any 3 eyed children being born :shock:
> 
> Thanks steyr223
> 
> 
> 
> 
> In fact, as far as I have seen in some tv reports, in short distance around some atomic plants there has been counted significantly more cases of juvenile blood cancer, but not around all. They could not find evidence for any causal relationship. But since 10 or 20 years we have dose rate measuring devices at a distance to each other of 10-15km all over the country. They can be examined by everyone:
> 
> http://odlinfo.bfs.de/
Click to expand...



But as you probably also know, there can arise from time to time clusters in certain areas of almost any type of disease for no apparent reason. For example people living near high voltage towers want to blame those for brain cancers, yet others with the same cancer in the town live nowhere near the towers, and yet some others living right underneath the towers are healthy?


----------



## solar_plasma

Yes, that's why I only stated the facts, without any judging. Nevertheless, anyone who is educated in detecting and measuring CBRN dangers knows, measuring zero does not mean, there is no danger, it only means, you have measured zero at a defined location, time and according to something that can be measured with the given device at all.


----------



## CBentre

And today there was another 6.4 magnitude earthquake off the coast of Japan with a possible tsunami warning......Here's a myth for you to ponder, 6 months after the event there was a press release that scientist had proved there were elevated radiation levels in the Tuna being caught off the coast B.C.. During that 6 month period people were processing and eating the Tuna out of those waters. Here's the kicker, two months after the event the scientist had already known about the elevated levels of radiation but the press release didn't come out until 4 months later. Makes you wonder......prove it or dis-prove it. I heard it on a radio show so I don't have articles to post here to relate to.


----------



## g_axelsson

Could it be this one? http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es500129b

It's written about it in this article.
http://rt.com/usa/155692-oregon-tuna-radiation-tripled-fukushima/


> ...
> Although the levels of radioactive isotopes in some of the tuna tripled after the disaster, the researchers found they are still “a thousand times lower” than the safety standards outlined by the US Department of Agriculture.
> 
> "A year of eating albacore with these cesium traces is about the same dose of radiation as you get from spending 23 seconds in a stuffy basement from radon gas," the study’s lead author, Delvan Neville said to Oregon’s Statesman Journal.


Göran


----------



## CBentre

Sounds similar but I heard it back in 2011, six months after the tsunami hit.


----------



## macfixer01

Some more interesting news about the Japanese nuclear power generation industry.

http://mashable.com/2014/07/28/japan-nuclear-prime-minister-payments/


----------



## Claudie

Fukushima Radiation Causing Long Term Effects

http://en.ria.ru/world/20140816/192075864/Fukushima-Radiation-Causing-Long-Term-Effects-.html


----------



## patnor1011

I wonder who and when will start study effects of continuous leaking and disposing of irradiated water to pacific ocean.


----------



## steyr223

None of it really matters anymore as we are.either moving
Into the 5th dimension "the new earth" or we will be obliterated just like atlantis by the source. If "the dark ones(i.e. the ones that are in power that believe in a different path of evolution than the light,not evil or bad just a much lower vibration level) dont stop playing with genetics of man :shock: 
Of course.most of u experimenters,researchers,questers of info probely already. Have an idea on that

I think i need to go meditate

The words above are not a perfect quote out of the convoluted universe by deloris cannon but they are close

I cant find my spell checker sorry
Thanks. Steyr223 rob


----------



## solar_plasma

If those people who earn the big money on building and running reactors and those who have to give permissions would be forced to live with their families in the direct neighborhood of those reactors, this technology would be much safer by construction. Just think of how safe it would be built, if the governments would have to work there each day. :lol:


----------



## steyr223

Solar very we'll said

It always goes back to the same thing

"If only everybody had to be responsible for there actions."
But then if that happened we might actually be a world of practiced liberty
With very little if any government 8) 

Steyr223 rob


----------



## Claudie

Radiation affecting horses? :shock: 

http://beforeitsnews.com/environment/2014/08/mystery-illness-attacks-california-horses-fukushima-2507342.html


----------



## Smokin_Cache

I have seen global warming mentioned in this thread more than once. I am still waiting on evidence that we are indeed warming and then that is caused by humans.

What radiation? Hard data is real hard to come by. Someone is spinning every angle


----------



## macfixer01

Smokin_Cache said:


> I have seen global warming mentioned in this thread more than once. I am still waiting on evidence that we are indeed warming and then that is caused by humans.
> 
> What radiation? Hard data is real hard to come by. Someone is spinning every angle




The only warming I've seen is all the hot air from Al Gore!
Also I'd be a little more concerned about the horse story if it wasn't such a blatantly whacko news site. Lets see... We have stories on chemtrails, "Rainbow Cloud Thingies", UFO's, was Joan Rivers really murdered?, the aliens are already here, theories about what may happen on 9/11 from a stock market crash to a false flag operation, and more evidence that Obama is the antichrist (well I already believed that one anyway!).


----------



## steyr223

The aliens killed joan rivers
And mork to


----------



## Harold_V

steyr223 said:


> The aliens killed joan rivers
> And mork to


And Frankenstein, as well as Dracula.

Harold


----------



## 4metals

> I have seen global warming mentioned in this thread more than once. I am still waiting on evidence that we are indeed warming and then that is caused by humans.
> 
> What radiation? Hard data is real hard to come by. Someone is spinning every angle



Evidence is not something you will see on network news, it's not the kind of thing that sells newspapers, it's really kind of boring to most but it does exist. You have to read about the research being done in the scientific journals and come to your own conclusions. If all people do is spout off what they hear from their favorite news channel all they are doing is making it more difficult to understand.

The world is a big place, and while some places may be getting warmer, some are getting colder and some are getting wetter. It's a very difficult thing to track, it''s not like the button that pops out of the turkey to say it's done! It is much more subtle than that. Just recently the fact that we do not know enough about the deep oceans acting as a heat sink has caused science to look into gathering more deep ocean data. The theory is the deep ocean currents are warming up and they hold heat in a place we are not even measuring extensively yet. I have no doubt that global warming exists and it is very real. Mind you, as much as I love his invention of the internet, I am no Al Gore fan either. 

Read some of the science (notice I said science, not sensationalized reporting but science that can be verified) about the ice cores and what they tell us about climate. These are in-disputable facts. Please note I did not say who is causing the warming, I think the first thing we humans must do is agree that the planet is warming up without casting blame and then figure out the sources. We know CO2 is making a large contribution, we know methane is making a big contribution but nature does it's thing with carbon and it is a by product of life but people have to get around and gasoline is hard to beat. People like to eat meat and cows like to pass gas (a large contributor to methane is animal flatulence, who would have thought?) We need to find the main players in the problem and work together to resolve the issue. 

If you are interested in what the ice cores tell us, read Climate Crash by John D Cox, it's some of the stuff network news never tells you.


----------



## g_axelsson

Totally agree with what 4-metals wrote.

Scientists are debating how much and why, not if the world is getting warmer.

... and blaming hair loss and death of some horses on radiation from Fukushima is just stupid. It would hit not only horses, all kind of animals would be affected and the levels easily measured. More plausible explanations could be poisoning, virus, fungus or parasites... but that wouldn't give as good headlines.
Here in Sweden we have measured the levels of nuclear isotopes from atom bomb tests that ended up in reindeer meat, the levels were as high around 1960 as just after Chernobyl blew up and dumped the nuclear fallout over my country. We can still measure the levels but we have never seen any horses losing the fur and die, nor any other animal. And we can still measure the levels of radiation left by Chernobyl with simple equipment.

Göran


----------



## macfixer01

Scientists who support global warming theory get funded. Those who have conflicting views either don't get funded, or worse yet they get fired. That doesn't make for good science, it makes for a religious dogma!


----------



## 4metals

Maybe you're right and all of the research is wrong. Reproducible, verifiable, and in compliance with scientific principle, but wrong. All the weather patterns are changing and the severe weather events are just made up to sell newspapers. 

Not worth an argument, we are here to discuss refining and we should keep it at that.


----------



## Claudie

The title of this thread is "*Fukushima? comments! facts! myths!*"
The horse story is just one of many stories floating around on the internet. There is every kind of nutt out there writing stories of whatever they can dream up. Not only about Fukushima but about everything. When reading anything on the internet today, one needs to use common sense, you can't believe everything out there. Many stories have an ounce of truth hidden in them somewhere, but not all of them. Even scientists can lie to further their agenda or to get more funding, it has been proven over the years. Polls have shown that polls will always lean towards what the surveyor wants. Pepsi surveys show that people prefer Pepsi over Coke, Coke surveys show that people prefer Coke over Pepsi. It's up to us to figure out where the truth lies. Many of us believe what we want to be the truth without seriously researching it to make sure. 
As for me, I did the research, I tried them both, Pepsi is better unless you are mixing it with whiskey. :|

EDIT: You shouldn't mix whiskey with anything.


----------



## Anonymous

4metals said:


> it''s not like the button that pops out of the turkey to say it's done!
Click to expand...


4metals what IS this strange alien technology to which you refer sir?

Jon


----------



## Geo

Consider the amount of green house gasses expelled by just one volcanic eruption. The earth cycles through this ever so often and people can swear it's caused by humans if they want to but I believe that humans are being a little vain to think that they can truly effect the overall scheme of things. There is X amount of carbon on the earths surface. It's predominantly either in the atmosphere or in the oceans. When there's more carbon in the air, green house gasses. When it's in the oceans, carbonic acid. Either way, the carbon is there and always has been. millions and millions of tons of carbon (CO2,methane,crude oil seepage just to name a few), sulfur (sulfur dioxide and all it's derivatives) and other green house gasses are released naturally every year. It cycles through the atmosphere and then moves back to the oceans through precipitation. Man may contribute but even the seemingly huge amounts reported is a drop in the bucket compared to mother nature.


----------



## alexxx

I can't believe people are still debating about the truth around global warming...
If you don't know and understand that it does exist and we are already way too far into it, I personally believe you are totally disconnected... Well, probably not living on the same planet...

There's tons of quality information out there, quality documentaries about ins and outs around this question.

Regarding Fukushima... well, after reading a lot on the subject, and trying to make my own personal opinion about it (according to the tinny bits of information available).
I tend to believe that this is by far the worst nuclear catastrophy in human / nuclear history... Way more dramatic than Chernobyl or Hiroshima...

Plain & simple... If building 4 goes before all the fuel rods are removed (they say they have removed 3/4 of them but is it true ?), the whole site must be abandoned (there's no debate within the scientific community about this one)...
That means that all 3 other reactors are going + all the cooling pools of spent fuel rods will go too... 
That's a global extinction of all life forms over the face of the earth probably within 20 years.

How many Fukushimas are needed before we understand that we don't know enough about this technology to play with it ?
We don't know how to deal with the current meltdowns... the cores are... somewhere... in god knows what state... and nobody has any clue on how to deal with that...

Fukushima is not a Tepco problem, it's not a Japanese problem... It's the biggest problem humanity is facing right now... There's nothing more important...
Than comes global warming as the 2nd great challenge of humanity...


----------



## g_axelsson

Geo said:


> Consider the amount of green house gasses expelled by just one volcanic eruption.


Looking at CO2 : Total emissions from volcanoes on land are estimated to average just 0.3 Gt of CO2 each year. Total human emissions in a year is 6 Gt, 20 times more than all the volcanic eruptions put together! 

The nature was in balance more or less before man started the industrial revolution. The large emissions from volcanic eruptions is balanced by absorption via various sources, for example chemical weathering (feldspar + carbonic acid -> clay + calcium carbonate).
When we started burning fossil fuels and constantly adding extra carbon to the atmosphere it doesn't disappear, the carbon sinks were balanced to the emission and can only absorb a bit more (circa 40% of the human emissions). The extra carbon we have added (the other 60%) have accumulated and today it is a quite large increase.

From wikipedia (with external references)


> Since the beginning of the Industrial Revolution (taken as the year 1750), the burning of fossil fuels and extensive clearing of native forests has contributed to a 40% increase in the atmospheric concentration of carbon dioxide, from 280 to 392.6 parts per million (ppm) in 2012.



The few drops in the bucket have made it overflow a long time ago and we are not stopping or even slowing down.
Time to wake up Geo and see the truth. Carbon in the ground or in the oceans doesn't affect the atmosphere, but carbon in the atmosphere does. It traps heat.

A natural change of 100ppm normally takes 5,000 to 20,000 years. The recent increase of 100ppm has taken just 120 years. Nature will survive but the question is in which form. More energy in the atmosphere means more water vapor which gives more rain in some places, more and larger flooding. More energy in the atmosphere also means more intense winds, many species will not adapt to the fast climate change and become extinct. We are facing a future with fewer wonders of nature...  

As an example on what higher energy content in the atmosphere could bring, look at this diagram about number of tornadoes in USA since 1950.







Göran


----------



## shaftsinkerawc

This thread does nothing to bring us together, quite the contrary. It divides! Nothing to do with refining or recovery.


----------



## patnor1011

I agree, it will be much better if this thread just disappear. Internet is so full of crap it is actually hard to find good piece of information. Do we really need to pile up more of nonsense in this fine place?


----------



## Harold_V

Geo said:


> Consider the amount of green house gasses expelled by just one volcanic eruption. The earth cycles through this ever so often and people can swear it's caused by humans if they want to but I believe that humans are being a little vain to think that they can truly effect the overall scheme of things.


Quite the contrary, really. Humans are allowing their ignorance to make decisions about what's going on, and why. Many choose to think global warming is a ruse, but if you follow the money it won't take long until you understand why. 

Global warming can not be denied. The records at hand do not lie. Why we are warming may be debatable, but there's overwhelming evidence that says it is not. Do keep in mind, I am a man of science, not witchcraft. 

I have no argument that a handful of people will have little effect on the environment, but we're not talking about a handful, we're talking about what, seven billion? Each of which expects the other guy to throttle back, all the while doing as they damned well please, disregarding the fact that they are, indeed, altering the very conditions that allow for life (as we know it) to exist on this planet. Surely you've seen pictures of air conditions in China? I've seen it that bad here in the US, years ago, in Santa Fe Springs, California. Is that the world you prefer?

One thing I know. Humans can not destroy the planet. It will go on, regardless of conditions, but those conditions may or may not be capable of supporting life. That's what the concern is, and it's damned reckless of anyone to disregard the information at hand, as if it is correct, our very existence hangs in the balance. 

Scientists have been chastised and even dismissed because of their sharp stance that global warming is caused by man. Who's to say who is right or wrong in this instance? The only thing I know is that we are experiencing unprecedented rainfall, along with extraordinary temperatures, both hot and cold. That's precisely what has been predicted by science, assuming global warming is true. 

We are not going to resolve this issue on this board. Far more intelligent people than us have beaten it to death, and thanks to the lies told by both sides, none of us will be exposed to the truth, and, should we be, the opposing party is sure to cast doubt on what is known to be (sound familiar?).

When you render it down, this topic is akin to politics. Folks will believe what they want to believe, and will have NOTHING to do with evidence that is contrary to what they wish to believe. That's a lesson I learned a couple years ago as a neighbor and I didn't agree on either subject. We no longer speak to one another (my choice). I was sick to death of his blindness and bigotry. 

Harold


----------



## Geo

Honestly, it wasn't the CO2 so much as sulfur I was referring to. One eruption can lower global temps as much as 1.5°F and we have one of these eruptions at least once a decade or more. The effects are relatively short lived (a year or two at most) but it is an accumulative effect. It may not be in our best interest but it is a natural process what humans do. If you follow some of ancient text, man has been this advanced before, maybe more times than one. Modern man has been around for 200,000 years. Man went from thinking the world was flat to going to the moon in a relative blink of an eye (500-600 years). I can't believe that modern man lived for thousands and thousands of years without advancing. Without naming any particular book, what comes to mind for me is one ancient text that says, (taken out of context) "should a man say, look at this thing, it is new. It has already been of old times and there is no remembrance of former things." If one thinks along these lines, what man is doing is actually natural for man to do. It's not good but it is nature. I in no way condone polluting in any form. I don't throw trash from my vehicle even if it means trashing my car. Industry pollutes unabated and just pays the fine every year. The earnings are such that the fine is considered part of the expenses. 

I am not trying to convince anyone of anything and am not asking anyone to subscribe to any particular way of thinking. I'm not trying to argue and concede that humans are ruining their natural environment. All I'm saying is I believe it's part of natural selection. Things will come to an end and civilization will end and humans will start over, again. Whether it's an asteroid, comet, biological, nuclear, seismic, solar, man made or whatever the event is, it will have the same effect. one poison is just as good as another. The steel will rust away and the concrete will crumble. Man will move out of the caves and start all over. By the time they reach this point of technology, someone like me will be saying the same things but there will be no remembrance of what we did.


----------



## 4metals

There is a natural process of carbon sequestration which has been going on for millions of years and the product of this sequestration is coal, oil, or natural gas. (depending on time, pressure, and location) All of this has been provided by mother nature without our intervention. Likely everyone is still in agreement up to this point. 

The amount of time it takes for this sequestration process is very very long but once man discovered it and discovered that it is a form of packaged energy and began to use it for its energy, well that tilted the entire equation. Keep in mind it took millions of years of slow accumulation to package the energy and at the rate we are going we will have used all of it up in less than 200 years. We can mine or drill the stuff and burn it so much faster than it was made, and now that the world has so many people and so many of those people drive cars and use this packaged energy in all of its forms, the equation is skewed towards the byproduct of its use, (CO2) rising. It's a very complicated algorithm, if it even is an algorithm, and natural things like volcano eruptions figure into it as does warming deep ocean currents and a few things that we likely haven't even realized yet. 

If we (mankind that is) are even capable of figuring it out it will only come from working together, from sharing what we know and admitting what we don't know and drawing conclusions from good data. Ironically it would work just like this forum does, you come here and talk about what you know and what you don't and you ask questions and answer questions and you work at it, if you do your homework and put in the time, you come away with real useful knowledge. Refiners or hobbyists come here because they want the knowledge, they realize if they come with the right attitude they will receive all the information they need. Maybe Noxx can start a global warming forum for the good of mankind!!!!


----------



## Claudie

> There is a natural process of carbon sequestration which has been going on for millions of years and the product of this sequestration is coal, oil, or natural gas. (depending on time, pressure, and location) All of this has been provided by mother nature without our intervention. Likely everyone is still in agreement up to this point.



I'm not in agreement with that. 
There are several cases where coal has been known to form in a very short time, but back to global warming. The Arctic ice may very well be growing smaller, but at the same time the Antarctic ice is growing in size. Maybe this is a cycle that has been repeating for thousands of years.

http://www.nasa.gov/topics/earth/features/arctic-antarctic-ice.html

http://phys.org/news/2013-10-antarctic-sea-ice.html


----------



## alexxx

Claudie said:


> The Arctic ice may very well be growing smaller, but at the same time the Antarctic ice is growing in size. Maybe this is a cycle that has been repeating for thousands of years.
> 
> http://phys.org/news/2013-10-antarctic-sea-ice.html
Click to expand...



Completely wrong.
The Antarctic ice is also melting at an incredible pace. And this has been very well documented during the past 2-3 years.

Especially the Thwaites Glacier on the west end of Antarctic is a real issue.

There is tons of reports from credible sources showing that the Antarctic ice caps are not spared. Global warming affects the whole planet, that's why we call it global...


----------



## 4metals

There is a large difference between the Arctic and the Antarctic. The Arctic sits on water and it is made of sea ice, the antarctic sits on a continent. So the warming of the planet warms the air and the water, the Arctic is attacked from below and above and it is logical it would melt quicker than the Antarctic ice which sits atop a continent. This is a good thing because sea ice is already displacing its weight in water so it does not cause the sea levels to rise when it melts, the Antarctic gaining ice may be offsetting to some extent the melting of land based glaciers on the other continents to make the sea rise a bit less. These things, sea level rise and polar caps melting and gaining size are subtle changes and all figure into the global picture. 



> There are several cases where coal has been known to form in a very short time,



This may be true but it doesn't negate the fact that carbon sequestration is a natural process that has been ongoing for millions of years, if there is any evidence of coal forming in a short time (I have not seen any but I have not looked either) it cannot be on the scale required to form the massive reserves that are on the planet from the much slower natural process. 

And it is tough to deny that mankind is using up the carbon reserves that had been removed from the carbon cycle at a much faster rate than the natural sequestration took to create it. That leads to an increase in net carbon in play on the planet and the build-up of greenhouse gasses.


----------



## rickbb

People are too focused on carbon, don't forget the "other" green house gas, methane. 

With the increase in fracking our methane output has gone up 10x in the past decade. Every natural gas well head has a pressure bypass valve that vents methane 24x7. Kind of negates the "clean" burning of natural gas, some studies show that when you add all the leakage, and transportation using traditional carbon based fuel vehicles, natural gas actually is worse than carbon based petro chemical fuels, (oil).


----------



## pgms4me

I think this post is an opinion poll,based on some thruth and some lies weve been told.Carbon dating has been proven unreliable,especially since Mount St.helens blew up.there is plenty of evidence that contradicts the earth as being millions of years old.matter of fact, The theory of evolution is falling apart as more evidence comes to light. Recent DNA research points to all of us as having Noah as an ancestor. Lots of tests,(exclusive of unreliable carbon dating)showing the earth to be less than 25,000 years old. Sure the earth is warming up,its not the first time,Must of warmed up a lot after the ice age.We are responsible with part of that warming.Maybe we will get smart enough to slow it down a bit. I do believe GOD created the heavens and the earth and everything in it.The Bible does predict much more world wide havoc,disasters and wars ahead, and this is just the beginning. we are in a time period to witness the beginning of what's ahead. Not looking to start any arguments here,I do respect all you gentlemen, and especially appreciate your refining inputs. I believe we should all be praying about it.I believe that is the most help i can be to my Grandchildren.


----------



## 4metals

Technically methane is the simplest carbon chain molecule. (CH4) It is one of the top 3 gasses present and contributing to the greenhouse effect. It has a longevity of about 12 years in the atmosphere. But it is carbon none the less. 

Carbon Dioxide is the most prevalent greenhouse gas by far and it is estimated to last in the atmosphere between 30 and 95 years. 

Nitrous oxide (N2O) is in third place but last over 100 years. 

But they all play into the equation, making it incredibly complex.


----------



## 4metals

I sense this thread is approaching the dangerous crossover point into Religious debate where we will not go. 

If we cannot stay out of it, I will lock this thread.


----------



## alexxx

pgms4me said:


> I believe we should all be praying about it.I believe that is the most help i can be to my Grandchildren.



There's many other very simple things you can do to help your grandchildren and everyone else...

We all have the power to turn things around, on an individual scale first, and also as a society.
- Pay attention to your water & energy consumption... Eat local grown foods... less meat & endangered / vulnerable fishes... recycle... buy a car with a smaller engine / gas consumption... Buy less useless garbage and toys you don't really need... Read the labels, educate yourself... know where your foods and other products you buy are made... Ask questions, read more, and even more... The list of things one can do is infinite...

By reading you will know and learn tons of simple ways to protect & respect this little planet we all love and share, regardless of who / what created it...


----------



## Geo

Man is Fallible and there will be many more disasters like Fukushima, or a lab tech will not follow protocol, or a space rock will be the end. According to Hawking, The only way to ensure human kind's existence is to get off this rock and colonize other worlds. On a global perspective, Fukushima is just another speck added to all of the nuclear sites on earth. Since there's very little that can be done, there is some questions that concerned people want to know but never will get answers. Who is responsible for the clean up? Are they doing their job? Is there more that can be done? If so, by whom? Since the outcome will be the same at the end of it all, it's kind of a moot point. Stopping nuclear energy from proliferating is like poking your finger in the levee. It's going to happen, it's just a question of when. There are forms of energy that people seldom hear about, like wave energy. Especially useful on the west coast, a dam is built in the mountains. Water is pumped up the mountainside and into the reservoir by buoy's anchored where the wave action provides the pumping action. Wave farms can pump enough water to run a very large hydro-electric dam lowering the need to burn fossil fuel to make electricity. Of coarse, studies on the wildlife impact alone may scrub such a useful program. If it comes down between me and the three horn green eyed walloback elk, well, better him than me.


----------



## rickbb

Carbon 14 dating is only one of many ways to date things and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has had zero effect on a properly done carbon 14 dating. Volcanoes erupt all the time all over the world and do not affect the science of determining how old something is. Carbon 14 dating has an accuracy of plus or minus 80 years on average, with a good sample and done properly. 

Other radio isotopes are now being used to date older samples than carbon 14, potassium-argon for dating rocks over 100,000 years old and uranium-lead which can date rocks over 1.5 milling years as the half life of uranium turning to lead is in the billons of years. There is also thermo luminescence and obsidian hydration and uranium trail dating.

There is NOT a plenty of evidence that contradicts how old science thinks the earth is, (it's 4 billion, not millions). In fact the more evidence that is published only confirms that this is an accurate estimation.

There is NOT any credible tests, (let alone lots of), that show the earth to only 25,000 years old. Again the more research that is published the more that this estimate is proven to look more reliable.

DNA research HAS indeed shown us to have a common ancestor, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever to know who they were, let alone prove it was Noah. Mitochondrial DNA research has shown our common ancestor lived in what is now south central Africa about 2 and 1/2 to 3 million years ago.


----------



## Geo

Please guys, pay attention to what 4metals said earlier and keep any aspect of religion out of the conversation. As for my part, I apologize for what I said, I was using it as a reference and did not mean to offend anyone.


----------



## Claudie

rickbb said:


> Carbon 14 dating is only one of many ways to date things and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has had zero effect on a properly done carbon 14 dating. Volcanoes erupt all the time all over the world and do not affect the science of determining how old something is. Carbon 14 dating has an accuracy of plus or minus 80 years on average, with a good sample and done properly.
> 
> Other radio isotopes are now being used to date older samples than carbon 14, potassium-argon for dating rocks over 100,000 years old and uranium-lead which can date rocks over 1.5 milling years as the half life of uranium turning to lead is in the billons of years. There is also thermo luminescence and obsidian hydration and uranium trail dating.
> 
> There is NOT a plenty of evidence that contradicts how old science thinks the earth is, (it's 4 billion, not millions). In fact the more evidence that is published only confirms that this is an accurate estimation.
> 
> There is NOT any credible tests, (let alone lots of), that show the earth to only 25,000 years old. Again the more research that is published the more that this estimate is proven to look more reliable.
> 
> DNA research HAS indeed shown us to have a common ancestor, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever to know who they were, let alone prove it was Noah. Mitochondrial DNA research has shown our common ancestor lived in what is now south central Africa about 2 and 1/2 to 3 million years ago.




I think to be fair, if you are going to make such statements as fact, you should provide at least some evidence. Maybe you could post some links to where you got this information.


----------



## Harold_V

pgms4me said:


> I think this post is an opinion poll,based on some thruth and some lies weve been told.Carbon dating has been proven unreliable,especially since Mount St.helens blew up.there is plenty of evidence that contradicts the earth as being millions of years old.matter of fact, The theory of evolution is falling apart as more evidence comes to light. Recent DNA research points to all of us as having Noah as an ancestor. Lots of tests,(exclusive of unreliable carbon dating)showing the earth to be less than 25,000 years old. Sure the earth is warming up,its not the first time,Must of warmed up a lot after the ice age.We are responsible with part of that warming.Maybe we will get smart enough to slow it down a bit. I do believe GOD created the heavens and the earth and everything in it.The Bible does predict much more world wide havoc,disasters and wars ahead, and this is just the beginning. we are in a time period to witness the beginning of what's ahead. Not looking to start any arguments here,I do respect all you gentlemen, and especially appreciate your refining inputs. I believe we should all be praying about it.I believe that is the most help i can be to my Grandchildren.


You're headed for a banning. Do NOT make this a religious discussion. It has no place on this board. We are men of science, not witchcraft. 

You would have to be living in a complete vacuum to even remotely consider that the earth isn't billions of years old. You have allowed your faith to cloud your thinking. That, alone, should help you understand why there is no room for religion in this discussion. 

Harold


----------



## pgms4me

I will post an apolgy,especially to you Harold. I posted" i did not want to start any arguments" but this thread was already loaded with religion before me. religion is ANY type of belief system. evolutionists believe in their religion. Not wanting to cause any more irritation or offense ,which it surely looks like I have ,i wil Not post on this thread any more .You have stated your personal view well Harold, and i respect you for all you do,regardless of what you believe.


----------



## Claudie

> You would have to be living in a complete vacuum to even remotely consider that the earth isn't billions of years old. You have allowed your faith to cloud your thinking.



If you are going to promote one belief, shouldn't other beliefs also be allowed as to not come across as close minded. When one is trying to find the best solution to any problem, it's best if they know what all of the alternatives are. By allowing one belief and no others, it isn't a discussion any longer, it's forcing one to accept something as fact when clearly many believe it is not.


----------



## Geo

The science says It is one way and not another. It's not a belief if it's science where things can be weighed and measured. With the technology available, the known universe can be measured. The distance calculated against the rate of expansion. Since light particles travel at a known speed, it's safe to say that light from an object at a certain distance takes a certain length of time to get here. A light year is the distance light travels in a standard earth year. If an object is 4 million light years away, that means that, that light has traveled 4 million years to get here. The Hubble space telescope can see several billions of light years distance. So according to what can be seen, the age of the universe (and earth) is over several billions of years. It's not an argument really or a belief, simply go to the site and do the math. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hubble_Space_Telescope
http://hubblesite.org/

You know, people who believed the earth was flat killed any that believed that the earth was round because of their beliefs.


----------



## Claudie

Science requires a lot of belief, as much as any religion. 
Do we agree that at some point, light came into existence? If it did, who is to say it started at one point and took 4 years to get to another point? 
I have studied history some, and I am not convinced that many people, if any at all, ever believed the Earth was flat. There are a few people around today that believe it is flat, but some people today will believe almost anything.


----------



## g_axelsson

Claudie said:


> rickbb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon 14 dating is only one of many ways to date things and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has had zero effect on a properly done carbon 14 dating. Volcanoes erupt all the time all over the world and do not affect the science of determining how old something is. Carbon 14 dating has an accuracy of plus or minus 80 years on average, with a good sample and done properly.
> 
> Other radio isotopes are now being used to date older samples than carbon 14, potassium-argon for dating rocks over 100,000 years old and uranium-lead which can date rocks over 1.5 milling years as the half life of uranium turning to lead is in the billons of years. There is also thermo luminescence and obsidian hydration and uranium trail dating.
> 
> There is NOT a plenty of evidence that contradicts how old science thinks the earth is, (it's 4 billion, not millions). In fact the more evidence that is published only confirms that this is an accurate estimation.
> 
> There is NOT any credible tests, (let alone lots of), that show the earth to only 25,000 years old. Again the more research that is published the more that this estimate is proven to look more reliable.
> 
> DNA research HAS indeed shown us to have a common ancestor, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever to know who they were, let alone prove it was Noah. Mitochondrial DNA research has shown our common ancestor lived in what is now south central Africa about 2 and 1/2 to 3 million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, if you are going to make such statements as fact, you should provide at least some evidence. Maybe you could post some links to where you got this information.
Click to expand...

I've got some rocks that are 4.56 billion years old. Measured with several different geological clocks. (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Radiometric_dating#Modern_dating_methods http://hyperphysics.phy-astr.gsu.edu/hbase/nuclear/clkroc.html) Yes, they are meteorites and formed before the earth was formed. Exactly when the earth was formed isn't known but there are strong clues that it was within 100 million years from the creation of the solar system. The oldest earth rock found so far is 4.28 billion years ( http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/09/080925144624.htm ) and the oldest solid material found in the solar system (Calcium-Aluminum-silicate-Inclusions in carbonaceous meteorites) is dated to 4.5682 billion years old. ( http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v3/n9/abs/ngeo941.html ) That puts two solid limits on the age of the earth. If considering the oldest zircons found in Australia at 4.404 billion years old ( http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v409/n6817/abs/409175A0.html ) it puts even a narrower time scale on when the earth was formed.

Carbon dating is looking at the ratio between the different levels of carbon isotopes. Every living plant is getting a mix of the carbon isotopes via CO2 in the atmosphere. When a plant is dying the levels are fixed and doesn't change any more. The faster decaying isotopes disappears over the ages and by comparing the levels we can measure the age. Since animals (including humans) are eating plants the same scenario is valid for animal remains.
Even if Mt. St. Helens added a lot of old carbon dioxide to the atmosphere (which it didn't do but humans do by burning fossil fuel) it would only affect carbon dating on stuff that lived after the eruption. Carbon dating isn't done on that modern material but if it was it would be an easy thing to compensate for the changing atmosphere. We are already doing it by looking at CO2 data from absolute tree ring data. ( http://userpage.fu-berlin.de/geodyn/tutorials/Physik_der_ErdeII/pdf/Muscheler-etal2008_naturegeo.pdf )

And for the mitochondrial Eve the science is a bit vague with several different dates tossed around but they all is in the same vicinity, 95000-200000 years. (I don't like that name, it's too much religion loaded in that name, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitochondrial_Eve Read the reference segment for more citations)
The hominid genus appeared about 2.3 to 2.5 million years ago ( http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2FBF02436432#page-1 )



Geo said:


> If you follow some of ancient text, man has been this advanced before, maybe more times than one. Modern man has been around for 200,000 years. Man went from thinking the world was flat to going to the moon in a relative blink of an eye (500-600 years). I can't believe that modern man lived for thousands and thousands of years without advancing. Without naming any particular book, what comes to mind for me is one ancient text that says, (taken out of context) "should a man say, look at this thing, it is new. It has already been of old times and there is no remembrance of former things."


Geo, how can you even suggest that humans have been this advanced before. There are NO evidence that there have been any advanced civilizations on earth before.



Geo said:


> If one thinks along these lines, what man is doing is actually natural for man to do. It's not good but it is nature. I in no way condone polluting in any form. I don't throw trash from my vehicle even if it means trashing my car. Industry pollutes unabated and just pays the fine every year. The earnings are such that the fine is considered part of the expenses.
> 
> I am not trying to convince anyone of anything and am not asking anyone to subscribe to any particular way of thinking. I'm not trying to argue and concede that humans are ruining their natural environment. All I'm saying is I believe it's part of natural selection. Things will come to an end and civilization will end and humans will start over, again. Whether it's an asteroid, comet, biological, nuclear, seismic, solar, man made or whatever the event is, it will have the same effect. one poison is just as good as another. The steel will rust away and the concrete will crumble. Man will move out of the caves and start all over. By the time they reach this point of technology, someone like me will be saying the same things but there will be no remembrance of what we did.


Are you saying that everything is natural since we are a part of nature? That definition of natural is useless since it embraces all and everything.

When our civilization crashes and humans (or mice) is starting up all over again they have a huge disadvantage compared to us. No natural resources left. The easy found oil, coal and metals are all dug up by us. Where I live about 30% of all ores down to 1000m depth are already extracted, the easy ones was cleaned out in the 1980:es and now every mine is 100-200 meters deep at least and down to 1200 meters.

Can we now please go back to discussions with a firm base in science!

Göran


----------



## Claudie

> Can we now please go back to discussions with a firm base in science!



If you are going to promote one belief, shouldn't other beliefs also be allowed as to not come across as close minded. When one is trying to find the best solution to any problem, it's best if they know what all of the alternatives are. By allowing one belief and no others, it isn't a discussion any longer, it's forcing one to accept something as fact when clearly many believe it is not.


----------



## g_axelsson

Claudie said:


> Science requires a lot of belief, as much as any religion.
> Do we agree that at some point, light came into existence? If it did, who is to say it started at one point and took 4 years to get to another point?
> I have studied history some, and I am not convinced that many people, if any at all, ever believed the Earth was flat. There are a few people around today that believe it is flat, but some people today will believe almost anything.


If I believe I have 99.95% pure gold and you believe it is 98% pure, how could we ever decide who is right unless science could give us some hard facts?
Everyone is allowed his own beliefs, but facts are facts and that is what science is about.
Light doesn't just "come into existence", it is created in a physical process. As black body radiation from an object, for example a star or the filament in a light bulb, as the energy released when an electron drops from one energy level to another in an atom, for example in a laser or aurora borealis, as energy given off when an electron is decelerated in a synchrotron. All these processes can create light and when the photon is created four light years away and directed towards us it would take four years to reach us. It doesn't matter what people believe, it will still take four years.

Everyone has the right to their own beliefs, but no one has the right to their own facts.

Göran


----------



## g_axelsson

Claudie said:


> Can we now please go back to discussions with a firm base in science!
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to promote one belief, shouldn't other beliefs also be allowed as to not come across as close minded. When one is trying to find the best solution to any problem, it's best if they know what all of the alternatives are. By allowing one belief and no others, it isn't a discussion any longer, it's forcing one to accept something as fact when clearly many believe it is not.
Click to expand...

Citation needed, what is it that I presented that that clearly many believe it is not?

Göran


----------



## Claudie

That science is fact.


----------



## g_axelsson

Science is based on facts and not beliefs.

The interpretation can change as we gain better knowledge. The data can be refined and more precise over time.
Scientific theories are constantly tested and if a theory can't stand up to the testing it will be replaced by something that do work.

Are you complaining that I gave too much facts when you asked for links?

Göran


----------



## alexxx

g_axelsson said:


> Claudie said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> rickbb said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Geo said:
> 
> 
> 
> If you follow some of ancient text, man has been this advanced before, maybe more times than one. Without naming any particular book, what comes to mind for me is one ancient text that says, (taken out of context) "should a man say, look at this thing, it is new. It has already been of old times and there is no remembrance of former things."
> 
> 
> 
> Geo, how can you even suggest that humans have been this advanced before. There are NO evidence that there have been any advanced civilizations on earth before.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> 
> Click to expand...
Click to expand...


Just curious Geo, to what text / texts are you referring to? Any references to gold by any chance ? Would love to know more about this.
Alex


----------



## Geo

The advances over the years through time is reliant on the laws of probability, if this had of happened then there would have been this instead of that. If another form of torque had been invented at the same time as the internal combustion engine, we wouldn't be using gasoline as fuel. There are people today using loose energy in the atmosphere (positively charge ions) to turn electric motors. Pulling electricity out of the air on a clear day. People are just now taking Tesla serious about transmitting and receiving power without wires. It's the direction that technology and innovation takes. Just like everything else, it moves in the path of least resistance. There was technology at the time to develop an electrical system to move a car but the internal combustion engine was easier. It could have just as easily went the other way. Energy can not be made from nothing just like energy can not be destroyed, it is dissipated. converting one energy to another is what we have been doing. Hydro-electric dams use stored energy and gravity to make electricity, solar panels convert sunlight to electricity. There are elements that make an electrical charge when they are excited like heating, being illuminated (radiated) or even bent. The possibilities are really endless about what could be done. At this point in time, inventions that would be competing with the fossil fuel industry and gasoline in particular would be bought by, ta da, the fossil fuel industry. They buy these great inventions and patents and toss them in a big box in a vault somewhere never to see the light of day again. It's not that the tech isn't available, it's just not available to us. Repression of ideas and ways of thinking has been the norm throughout history. looking at history, other forms of energy has been described and some have been replicated. There are historical accounts of energy sources that we can't conceive. If we could replicate these energy sources, would we be any better off.

If man was advanced and the knowledge was lost to history, it would be reasonable to assume that the energy source they used contributed to whatever calamity brought an end to their world. If it were nuclear, would we be able to detect it from 100,000 years ago? What about all the amazing things from the ancient world that, even today, can't be explained by modern technology. Modern objects found in solid rock or miles deep in virgin coal veins. http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=stuff_in_coal or https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOut-of-place_artifact&ei=F9MYVOr3BIPOggSbrYJA&usg=AFQjCNFG2Ss6vjpTtiLdL-P6uJyGDz0q0w&sig2=EdMut10m3YkTHWTYKashig&bvm=bv.75558745,d.eXY


----------



## shaftsinkerawc

If the scientific facts (repeatable and observable) were kept isolated from the scientific THEORIES it would simplify things.


----------



## Claudie

g_axelsson said:


> Science is based on facts and not beliefs.
> 
> The interpretation can change as we gain better knowledge. The data can be refined and more precise over time.
> *Scientific theories are constantly tested and if a theory can't stand up to the testing it will be replaced by something that do work.*
> 
> *Are you complaining that I gave too much facts when you asked for links?*
> 
> Göran



Exactly what you said, "* if a theory can't stand up to the testing it will be replaced by something that do work.*" If it was fact, it would not change over time, as science has a history of doing. I know you said "theory" but science teaches theories as fact. 
The 4.5 billion year old Earth is a theory, as are many other "facts" science teaches. 



> If the scientific facts (repeatable and observable) were kept isolated from the scientific THEORIES it would simplify things.


Very well stated. 

I assume you think I am complaining because I do not agree with you. I am not complaining about anything, I am just stating facts.


----------



## macfixer01

Geo said:


> The advances over the years through time is reliant on the laws of probability, if this had of happened then there would have been this instead of that. If another form of torque had been invented at the same time as the internal combustion engine, we wouldn't be using gasoline as fuel. There are people today using loose energy in the atmosphere (positively charge ions) to turn electric motors. Pulling electricity out of the air on a clear day. People are just now taking Tesla serious about transmitting and receiving power without wires. It's the direction that technology and innovation takes. Just like everything else, it moves in the path of least resistance. There was technology at the time to develop an electrical system to move a car but the internal combustion engine was easier. It could have just as easily went the other way. Energy can not be made from nothing just like energy can not be destroyed, it is dissipated. converting one energy to another is what we have been doing. Hydro-electric dams use stored energy and gravity to make electricity, solar panels convert sunlight to electricity. There are elements that make an electrical charge when they are excited like heating, being illuminated (radiated) or even bent. The possibilities are really endless about what could be done. At this point in time, inventions that would be competing with the fossil fuel industry and gasoline in particular would be bought by, ta da, the fossil fuel industry. They buy these great inventions and patents and toss them in a big box in a vault somewhere never to see the light of day again. It's not that the tech isn't available, it's just not available to us. Repression of ideas and ways of thinking has been the norm throughout history. looking at history, other forms of energy has been described and some have been replicated. There are historical accounts of energy sources that we can't conceive. If we could replicate these energy sources, would we be any better off.
> 
> If man was advanced and the knowledge was lost to history, it would be reasonable to assume that the energy source they used contributed to whatever calamity brought an end to their world. If it were nuclear, would we be able to detect it from 100,000 years ago? What about all the amazing things from the ancient world that, even today, can't be explained by modern technology. Modern objects found in solid rock or miles deep in virgin coal veins. http://www.6000years.org/frame.php?page=stuff_in_coal or https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=1&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CB4QFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fen.wikipedia.org%2Fwiki%2FOut-of-place_artifact&ei=F9MYVOr3BIPOggSbrYJA&usg=AFQjCNFG2Ss6vjpTtiLdL-P6uJyGDz0q0w&sig2=EdMut10m3YkTHWTYKashig&bvm=bv.75558745,d.eXY




Geo.
While I don't subscribe to all their alien theories, I do like to watch the tv show Ancient Aliens. They show some of the more unexplainable places and objects around the world that I don't see mainstream science investigating, and they at least ask the question, how could this be? In line with what you said Geo, dinosaur bones have to be painted with a special paint before display because they're radioactive. Now that could possibly be explained I suppose by radioactive minerals being incorporated during the fossilization process, but certainly not at every location. Even more interesting are ancient sites thousands of years old like Mohenjo-Daro and Harappa where skeletons were found lying in the streets with up to 50 times background radiation and stone and ceramic objects in the area had been melted and vitrified! This could point to a natural runaway fission reaction within radioactive ore deposits, there is evidence that did happen at least once in Earth's past. However could it also be evidence of the use of radioactive power sources by man in our prehistoric past?


----------



## Geo

The ones I find most provocative are the Quimbaya artifacts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quimbaya_artifacts Pre-Colombian artifacts. Little is known about how the makers of these artifacts received the inspiration to make such things. It has been suggested that they came from a cargo cult and was just making objects they had observed. The objects has been described as representing birds, insects or lizards. It's mind boggling that anyone can see these objects and not see clearly what they represent. I watched a special about them when I was a child and scaled models of them were not only aerodynamic, but were truly built to fly. Made almost a thousand years before powered flight, arguing what they are not is harder to explain than what they actually represent.




Is it hard to imagine that these artifacts came from the same continent as the Nazca lines in Peru that can only be seen in it's entirety from the air. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=nazca+lines&FORM=HDRSC2


----------



## Harold_V

Claudie said:


> You would have to be living in a complete vacuum to even remotely consider that the earth isn't billions of years old. You have allowed your faith to cloud your thinking.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If you are going to promote one belief, shouldn't other beliefs also be allowed as to not come across as close minded. When one is trying to find the best solution to any problem, it's best if they know what all of the alternatives are. By allowing one belief and no others, it isn't a discussion any longer, it's forcing one to accept something as fact when clearly many believe it is not.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I do not agree. This has nothing to do with my "belief", but everything to do with evidence at hand, observations by learned men who have used scientific methods to draw conclusions. These conclusions have been reliably repeated time and again, proving their veracity. How that information is interpreted by others is the problem, not the information. In all too many cases (how this thread has taken a turn is a good example) those with a religious conviction refuse to accept that which has been learned, in many cases because it is in direct conflict with their religious convictions. If you don't find that strange, I'm a little surprised, as I do, and rightfully so. 

Religion, by sharp contrast, is the faith to believe that which has been told by those who went before us, typically with little to nothing in the way of evidence to support a given position. Do NOT make mention of your Bible as proof, as it was written by man, and has been repeatedly copied. None of us have the slightest idea what the agenda may have been of those involved, although that they desired control over man was quite obvious. Much of it is based on fable, and has nothing to do with the truth. Want an example? Do you **really** think that an individual dwelled in the stomach of a whale? Do your **really** believe that there was an arc---filled with animals? It would have had to be a ponderous arc, don't you think? Even stranger, animals from all corners of the world just happened to get to the arc to board. How could that be? 

One more--do you **really** believe the entire world was flooded? If so, from where did the water come, and where did it go? Can you not see that from the point of science, these things makes no sense? 

I made mention that we tend to be men of science. That, of course, doesn't include everyone on the board, for I realize that there are those who will faithfully follow the teachings of their given religion, in spite of overwhelming (scientific) evidence to support that things are not as they believe. For that reason, it serves no purpose to introduce religion. 

We have been discussing a topic which is science based. If you have hopes of seeing this discussion continue, I tell you once again---drop ANY mention of religion. The three examples I provided, above, should be evidence enough for any intelligent individual to understand that it serves no purpose aside from to divide the board. I am not willing to stand by and watch that happen. 

I was born and raised in a community where the chosen religion was quite intolerant of those who did not subscribe to the same diatribe, and was abused from childhood on, finding peace only when I moved to another state, where that *religion* has little influence. As a result, I have no tolerance for religious people, nor the diatribe they wish to extend upon others. Keep it to yourself, where it belongs. 

A closing thought, although primarily for those who reside in the US. 
The constitution grants freedom of religion. It also grants freedom_* from *_religion. No one has the right to put upon others their chosen beliefs, in particular when they have not been invited. 

Harold


----------



## solar_plasma

I love this discussion. I have to re-read it.


Since sciences get more sophisticated and partly not understandable by common human, there is a tendency to generate a religious belief in the sciences or better: in the scientists, which is different from science.

Most scientific research is not independent. It is paid by groups that have a higher interest in getting results that gain their interests, than to find a scientific truth (though "truth" is not a good term, when we talk science). Even scientists are not always and in all situations able to see the difference. Mostly there is a harsh hierarchy, that makes it even harder to reveal faked researches. Those are only some reasons, why some scientists are faking tests, deleting unsatisfying results or modify variables in simulations until they get the result they wish.

Especially some revealed fakes from the mainstream opinion have made it hard to "believe" anything.

One thing for sure, we can't be sure, yet. The climate is changing, but it always did, so this is not a breaking news. Independent research is needed. Until then we should avoid any avoidable pollution, save resources, that's never a mistake, but without getting panicky, instead going on to raise any "truth", any technology, any subventions and any eco-taxes to question.

Life is life threatening, it has always been and each next day might be the last, the day of a large asteroid impact, a deadly pandemic outbreak or an outburst of a super volcano, or - most probably NOT.


----------



## rickbb

Claudie said:


> rickbb said:
> 
> 
> 
> Carbon 14 dating is only one of many ways to date things and the eruption of Mt. St. Helens has had zero effect on a properly done carbon 14 dating. Volcanoes erupt all the time all over the world and do not affect the science of determining how old something is. Carbon 14 dating has an accuracy of plus or minus 80 years on average, with a good sample and done properly.
> 
> Other radio isotopes are now being used to date older samples than carbon 14, potassium-argon for dating rocks over 100,000 years old and uranium-lead which can date rocks over 1.5 milling years as the half life of uranium turning to lead is in the billons of years. There is also thermo luminescence and obsidian hydration and uranium trail dating.
> 
> There is NOT a plenty of evidence that contradicts how old science thinks the earth is, (it's 4 billion, not millions). In fact the more evidence that is published only confirms that this is an accurate estimation.
> 
> There is NOT any credible tests, (let alone lots of), that show the earth to only 25,000 years old. Again the more research that is published the more that this estimate is proven to look more reliable.
> 
> DNA research HAS indeed shown us to have a common ancestor, but there is absolutely no way whatsoever to know who they were, let alone prove it was Noah. Mitochondrial DNA research has shown our common ancestor lived in what is now south central Africa about 2 and 1/2 to 3 million years ago.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> I think to be fair, if you are going to make such statements as fact, you should provide at least some evidence. Maybe you could post some links to where you got this information.
Click to expand...



The information is out there if one keeps to known "science" sites that publish work that meets the rigors of repeatable and measurable methods and off of the decoy "pseudo-science" sites that only quote works that can't be tracked down or repeated. It's those decoy sites that most people are using to make such statements like "lots of tests prove". But no one can find or duplicate these "tests".


Cambridge University

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/questions/question/2003/

WikiPedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Age_of_the_Earth

"Modern radiometric dating

Radiometric dating continues to be the predominant way scientists date geologic timescales. Techniques for radioactive dating have been tested and fine-tuned for the past 50+ years. Forty or so different dating techniques have been utilized to date, working on a wide variety of materials. Dates for the same sample using these different techniques are in very close agreement on the age of the material.

Possible contamination problems do exist, but they have been studied and dealt with by careful investigation, leading to sample preparation procedures being minimized to limit the chance of contamination."

More WikiPedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genealogical_DNA_test

"Map of human migration out of Africa, according to Mitochondrial DNA. The numbers represent thousands of years before present time."


----------



## g_axelsson

Claudie said:


> g_axelsson said:
> 
> 
> 
> Science is based on facts and not beliefs.
> 
> The interpretation can change as we gain better knowledge. The data can be refined and more precise over time.
> *Scientific theories are constantly tested and if a theory can't stand up to the testing it will be replaced by something that do work.*
> 
> *Are you complaining that I gave too much facts when you asked for links?*
> 
> Göran
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Exactly what you said, "* if a theory can't stand up to the testing it will be replaced by something that do work.*" If it was fact, it would not change over time, as science has a history of doing. I know you said "theory" but science teaches theories as fact.
> The 4.5 billion year old Earth is a theory, as are many other "facts" science teaches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> If the scientific facts (repeatable and observable) were kept isolated from the scientific THEORIES it would simplify things.
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> Very well stated.
> 
> I assume you think I am complaining because I do not agree with you. I am not complaining about anything, I am just stating facts.
Click to expand...


Fact : The age of meteorites are 4.56 billion years (+/- a few millions)
Fact : The oldest rock found on earth is 4.28 billion years ( +/- ??? million years )
Fact : The earth was created from meteorite material so it has to be younger than the meteorites.
Theory : The earth is between 4.56 and 4.28 billion years
Theory : The moon was created in a collision between the earth and a mars-sized object.
Fact : The oldest moon rocks are FAN at 4.36 billion years (ref.)
New theory based on the age of the moon : The earth is between 4.56 and 4.36 billion years.

This is how science works. Better tools and better understanding gives better results. If the results are colliding with other results then we go back and see what is wrong. Fix the error and any implications there is. Science isn't fixed in stone, it is a constant flux of new data and finer measurements to understand the working of the universe and the nature around us.

If two different theories are competing then science usually groups together behind the one that agrees with fact the best and tries to find out what is missing. Sometimes there are paradigm shifts like Newtonian -> Einsteinian physics, but both were right, there isn't a big clash between the two theories and both are presented in schools.
We know that there are things we don't know as there is no connection between quantum physics and relativistic physics. Gravity is still an enigma, we know how it generally works on planets, galaxies, affecting time and so on, but not on the microscopic scale. That is what makes it so fascinating and interesting!

Today we know so much about so many subjects that only the experts are able to penetrate all accumulated knowledge and get to the edge of knowledge and make new discoveries. In school we need to cover a lot of different subjects so we don't have time to go into nuances in everything. I understand that some teachers could pass on some well funded theories as absolute facts, but even if it isn't absolute it is often the most probably theory.
Sometimes a complex theory is attacked and some contradictions can be presented and taken as proof of the falsehood of the theory in whole. That is just wrong and often the contradictions is resolved when more facts and finer detailed theories are developed. That's the scientific process.

Okay, I have presented the facts and theories of why the earth is around 4.5 billion years old. What other theory is there today? Please, separate facts and theories.

Göran


----------



## alexxx

I love this thread...

So many interconnected subjects here... Well, easy to get lost in all directions... Remember it was first about Fukushima...
But still quite interesting...

Science, religion, history, energy, environment and gold... It's crazy to see how all these subjects are closely connected to each another.


----------



## jason_recliner

Not to deny any of the numbers presented, but as far as I am concerned, all the above mentioned facts are theories too. Not theories as in "Hey, I've got an untested idea..." but commonly held and generally considered to be true. Including by me. But we don't know it as fact as we weren't here to "measure and observe" which, really, is the basis of science. It only takes finding one 4.8 billion year old rock to wreck it all, then we get a new commonly held theory. That probably won't happen.

A scientific fact is that my twin nieces are two years, three weeks and two days old. I can stake reputation or gold on it because I am able to count earth rotations since their arrival. And the cake was fantastic. The age of the earth, moon, meteoroids, et al are assumed - based in extrapolation of what we can measure and observe now. And we have to assume it's linear because we have no solid reference very far back at all in time. (We're counting back 4.5 billion based on what we can see since about 1950.) Radio dating, which was once complete rubbish (I remember a report about a ~80,000 year old bone that turned out to be from a dog that died in 1963), has come a long way. Internet dating has made good progress too.

We're really only getting better at taking guesses. At least, we like to think we are.


----------



## Geo

Yea, I can see that age of the globe would be a concern for argument sake, but really, is it important enough to cause a rift here? We have all stated what we think, which makes it a discussion. When we try to convince others that our way is the right way, then it's arguing. I think it takes a mighty big pig to weigh a ton but I'm not willing to argue about it. I would like to continue the discussion but I feel it's getting out of hand. 

As an aside, the "frozen earth" containment that I mentioned at the beginning of this thread is moving ahead but at a slower pace than they hoped. They are saying that it should be up and running by the end of the year. http://fukushimaupdate.com/japan-in-depth-tepco-measures-fail-to-hold-water/ What can they do that they haven't already done?


----------



## solar_plasma

jason_recliner said:


> Not to deny any of the numbers presented, but as far as I am concerned, all the above mentioned facts are theories too. Not theories as in "Hey, I've got an untested idea..." but commonly held and generally considered to be true..............
> 
> A scientific fact is that my twin nieces are two years, three weeks and two days old.



:lol: well, now, you're far off. Then you have to question, if we can know ANYTHING. Are you real or are you part of a simulation, that believes it is real,because that is the way it has been programmed?

So, how sure can you be, you have two nieces? How sure can you be, world wasn't created yesterday, inclusively all people's memories?

But everything is good. You have two nieces and the earth is more than 4 billion (4 Milliarden) years old. Why? Because there is no pharma or energy industry, that would fake research and suppress disliked data. *Undependent research.*

And, Göran, if there was a pharma or energy industry behind it, they COULD generate and promote data, that make people believe something else and sell it as fact. There are lots of examples. In a perfect world, natural scientists would have studied soft sciences like philosophy or psychology as their third or fourth subject in order to better understand the weak points of hard sciences' epistemology.


----------



## jason_recliner

solar_plasma said:


> So, how sure can you be, you have two nieces?


They make twice as much noise.


----------



## solar_plasma

jason_recliner said:


> solar_plasma said:
> 
> 
> 
> So, how sure can you be, you have two nieces?
> 
> 
> 
> They make twice as much noise.
Click to expand...


What does the gamer say, when he leaves life? :shock: ... "Life" ...poor game :roll: , but sensational graphics!!! 8)


----------



## g_axelsson

solar_plasma said:


> jason_recliner said:
> 
> 
> 
> Not to deny any of the numbers presented, but as far as I am concerned, all the above mentioned facts are theories too. Not theories as in "Hey, I've got an untested idea..." but commonly held and generally considered to be true..............
> 
> A scientific fact is that my twin nieces are two years, three weeks and two days old.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> :lol: well, now, you're far off. Then you have to question, if we can know ANYTHING. Are you real or are you part of a simulation, that believes it is real,because that is the way it has been programmed?
> 
> So, how sure can you be, you have two nieces? How sure can you be, world wasn't created yesterday, inclusively all people's memories?
> 
> But everything is good. You have two nieces and the earth is more than 4 billion (4 Milliarden) years old. Why? Because there is no pharma or energy industry, that would fake research and suppress disliked data. *Undependent research.*
> 
> And, Göran, if there was a pharma or energy industry behind it, they COULD generate and promote data, that make people believe something else and sell it as fact. There are lots of examples. In a perfect world, natural scientists would have studied soft sciences like philosophy or psychology as their third or fourth subject in order to better understand the weak points of hard sciences' epistemology.
Click to expand...

Two nieces... from my point of view it is more unsure than the age of meteorites. There are no peer review of your statement, no independent research and it's based on hearsay. How can we be sure that your memory is correct? That you isn't an internet troll? It is harder to do any independent measurement of your nieces age than of a meteorite.
I don't think you are a troll or that you have any reason to lie but the only fact here is that you is telling us your nieces age. The theory is that it is correct. 8) 

This is starting to go into too much philosophy for my taste... there is no spoon... there are no facts... :mrgreen: 

Solar, whenever there are monetary issues there will be scientists that are producing substandard research and companies that will finance their research. I have personally seen a number of reports totally shredded to the bones by an independent researcher. It was a number of reports that insurance companies had done to prove no connection between whiplash and certain car accidents. That is why independent research is important and any results published should include enough details so the research can be duplicated and verified.
Sooner or later bad science is revealed or just ignored.
I've also seen scientists devastated when they found that a bug in a program that extracted data from a satellite was the source of their latest discovery and they had spent half a year working with that data. They had the article approved and peer reviewed already but they managed to stop the printing in time.

Göran


----------



## solar_plasma

g_axelsson said:


> This is starting to go into too much philosophy for my taste... there is no spoon... there are no facts... :mrgreen:
> 
> Göran



:lol: I wouldn't have expected anything less than that from a natural scientist. :mrgreen: 

Well, there are a lot of facts, though based on scientific methods different from the "hard" sciences, which are locked to only what you can examine empirically. While the soft sciences make it possible to examine phenomena, which are not accessible by empiricism. Both of those disciplines are not perfect and at least not as satisfying and sedative as the truth of a religion, but in both circumstances, empirically accessible or not, we haven't any better and more accurate tool.


----------



## solar_plasma

Oh, just think of the old Greeks, who already discussed the atom only by philosophically methods more than 2000 years before they got discovered. Great thinkers, but poor experimenters.


----------



## jason_recliner

Peer revew? I'm up for that. Sure Göran. Come! Observe and measure them yourself! Because Science!
I'd have to check with my sister - but I can't see why a girl in Australia would have a problem with some random dude from Sweden knocking on the door to size up her darlings. They are observable, measurable and let me absolutely assure you, very, *very* audible. (bring your earmuffs)
If you don't wish to take my word for their age, by all means cut one of their arms off and count the rings. But I should probably warn you that "Dad" was once a member of Victoria Police and still keeps a .38". :lol:

Jason


----------



## g_axelsson

The perils of modern science... :lol: 

I think I would try to use more non contact measurements rather than cutting off arms. After all, you don't want to disturb the subject too much.

I would like to go back and visit Australia more times. I spent a month in the Perth-area when a friend got married, later I spent a week in Calgorlie to search for gold. Didn't find any, only a bunch of old led bullets and traces from the gold rush. But I looked down in the super pit during blasting and partied with the miners in the evening...

Keep cool mate!

Göran


----------



## Claudie

There is evidence all around us that points to a much younger Earth then the scientific theories suggest. When evidence like this is presented that doesn't fit in with the theory, it is pushed aside. That is not basing anything on facts, that is basically lying to further an agenda. 

Here is just one of many examples: 
Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays quickly.
Carbon-14 (or radiocarbon) is a radioactive form of carbon that scientists use to date fossils. But it decays so quickly—with a half-life of only 5,730 years—that none is expected to remain in fossils after only a few hundred thousand years. Yet carbon-14 has been detected in “ancient” fossils—supposedly up to hundreds of millions of years old—ever since the earliest days of radiocarbon dating.
Source: https://answersingenesis.org/geology/carbon-14/7-carbon-14-in-fossils-coal-and-diamonds/


----------



## 4metals

Your reference is from Answering Genesis, yeah they have no agenda!


----------



## solar_plasma

Claudie, you know the year rings of trees, right? It's this summer-winter-thing. Quite the same works with ice. I think the oldest ice core layers are about 850000 years old. The same with sediment cores. 

Then you have:
uranium-lead dating for samples older than 1 million years up to over 4,5 billion year, accuracy 0,1-1%
uranium-thorium dating for samples from few years to over 500 000 000 years
potassium-argon dating
argon-argon dating

methods I never heard of before like electron spin resonance dating...sounds like speed dating in a hospital :lol: or luminescence dating (=kind of candlelight dinner?)

many more I never heard of, but make sense, when reading about them..

Many of them you could use to cross check your tests. Then you can cross check plausibility with other scientific disciplines: A rock must do what a rock must do.

Take it as a man, your and my grand-grand-period-grandma is one and the same bacteria living 3000m under sea near a nice warm black smoker. Her great-period-great granddaughter about a billion years later, 200 million years ago, lived in Ethiopia, was black and was the first homo sapiens. Later some homo sapiens, by the way, had children with some homo neanderthalensis people. This is written in our genes. Actually, I assumed this since I had a driving license and was able to study human behavior on the road.


----------



## 4metals

The internet is a wonderful thing, (thank you Al Gore!) it opens us up to a world of different opinions about the same topic. The problem is anyone can post anything on the internet. 

The Answering Genesis website which was referenced is a well written site but it is biased. Not to say we can't learn from that. I went to that site and read their opinions. I then looked up techniques they referenced and was careful not to visit sites set up to specifically disagree with answering genesis as they can be as biased in the other direction. Instead I went to the sites where the science and limitations of carbon 14 are discussed. It is easy to figure out that because of the half life decay of carbon 14 that carbon 14 analysis only is valid up to about 20,000 years so it is specifically not used on samples known to be older. 

Read about carbon 14 analysis, why it works and what its limitations are. Be better informed when you go to a site with an agenda and you will come away with a different opinion. Then read about the other decay type dating methods used which can date materials millions to billions of years old.


----------



## solar_plasma

Nevertheless, it is impressive how close the genesis (and the foreign sources, it has been covered from) is to modern scientific view of the universe. Must have been quite a lot of light, when our universe wasn't larger than our solar system today! Well the days have been billions of years, but people living that time probably only could count to ten. Again an example for how far we can come only using our mind and imagination. 

Without starting to discuss religion, it was one of the first early roots of the science we have today. Mankind developed from an animal to a human being, when he started trying to "perceive whatever holds // The world together in its inmost folds." (Goethe, Faust I) Maybe the forbidden fruit has been mankind's first empirical experiment and here we are, the only chronic dissatisfied animal, because we always need to know the "what, why and whereto".


----------



## Geo

Like I said before, probability. There's a big difference between possibility and probability. Is it possible that man walked with dinosaurs, sure, it's just not probable. If it was probable, we would find human skeletons with dinosaur skeletons. At least something that satisfies the rational that it is probable. Only faith lets people believe that it's possible and therefore probable. No one person can say with 100% certainty that they are right on either side simply because it is possible but not probable. Even science is based on faith. Science would have us believe that everything is made of tiny things that we can't see with our eyes. If I didn't believe in atoms, I would say, "show me or I can't believe". They can show me pictures, data, machines but they can't hold one up and say "here is an atom". I'm being asked to believe that that everything is made of tiny parts that can't be seen. I have to take it on "faith" that they are telling me the truth. With that being said, it is possible that everything is made of something else but not very probable. Most people feel that the most probable is the correct answer. Since no one is "all knowing" , it's the best we have. Just like everything else, humans will follow the path of least resistance. If we didn't, civilization wouldn't be possible. Look at the world as it is. The countries where people are split one from another, there is no civility. There has to be a common standard on which we base civilization which I believe is education. To standardize education, there must be a commonly accepted belief system much like religion. Education has schools and universities and so does religion. Neophytes and masters on both sides. There's a reason though that there was a separation of the two. Education welcomes experimentation and testing of theories. Heresy or blasphemy was punishable by death up to a couple hundred years ago. If we were keeping a score card of sorts, more people have died due to religious intolerance than have died of disease in the same time period. The crusades lasted for hundreds of years and some say it's still being fought today. In my opinion, and I know what it's worth, any religion that would ask it's faithful to kill or die may not have their best interest at heart.


----------



## solar_plasma

We can see the outer shape of gold atoms...at least Göran probably can with his electron microscope...everything inside the atom we have models about. A model is not made to show the reality. Even electron's behavior has nothing to do with the "reality" we know. Well, hey, something that can be here and there at the same time, not a wave, not a particle, but a bit of both? Something that can disappear here and without travelling through space, being another place at the same time? Models are made to make valid predictions possible. And every refiner can tell, those predictions are pretty exact. Proofs? - Just turn on the fluorescent tube! You got light? You just let some electrons do some funny things, that sound like science fiction.


----------



## Anonymous

Ok so given the choice between carbon dating being a few points incorrect, or the world being made 6500 years ago I know which donkey I'll pin my tail onto.

Then again maybe we were seeded here by aliens - and the whole world is some intergalactic reality show. It's as plausible as some of the whacko theories out there.


----------



## solar_plasma

Since we have most of our genes in common with any animal on earth (I think it was 80% with a worm, if I remember right), we must have been seeded a half or one billion years ago.

If it has been aliens though, is less probable than that we came as some advanced amino acid compounds in a primitive spacecraft (an asteroid).

But the most fantastic fact is, that each atom heavier than hydrogen we are made of has been built in stars and every atom heavier than iron even in giant collisions of super heavy stellar objects. Love it! We are stardust, born in light. 8) even the iron in our blood needed at least a collision of two neutron stars, - only a spoon full of neutron star weighs as much as a super tanker!


----------



## Claudie

Some people have been in a box for so long, they cannot know that there is anything other than the box.
If you are ever able to see a glimmer of light shinning through a crack in the box, I hope you will have the good sense to at least attempt to see the outside. I have a suspicion that, like so many others have done, you will tape that hole shut straight away so as not to have to admit to being mislead for so long.


----------



## solar_plasma

I can live with that, knowing a whole universe fits into my box. Outside this box, there exist no space and no time, but that only means I cannot imagine what is outside, nobody can think of anything that far of our normal reality. But I should wonder, if there wasn't something that just is not cognitively accessible to our conscious.

If we were allowed to talk beliefs, then I would say, that I think, what you call god is just so much bigger, than you in your box can imagine. I was grown up with fundamentalist christian influences, so you can say, what you want -I know, this statement you can't deny.

We should come back to something that fits better to the topic before we get in trouble with the mods. .....hey just think of how much gold there must be in space! :lol:


----------



## Geo

What crosses my mind is, what will happen when we find out that the galaxies are cells in a very large animal and we are a virus. As scientist peer deeper and deeper into the sub atomic universe, will they find the one that the sentient life forms there evolve and go extinct in the blink our eye. So tiny that their lifespan can't even be measured against anything we know. 
Cut scene to outside our universe. The scientist are looking through their microscope at the powerful little swarm of sub-atomic particles and notice that one tiny blue dot seems to be contaminated with some form of biomass. Lets hope they decide to take a closer look instead of just sterilizing it and starting over.


----------



## solar_plasma

Now, that is scaring! :lol:


----------



## Anonymous

Claudie said:


> Some people have been in a box for so long, they cannot know that there is anything other than the box.
> If you are ever able to see a glimmer of light shinning through a crack in the box, I hope you will have the good sense to at least attempt to see the outside. I have a suspicion that, like so many others have done, you will tape that hole shut straight away so as not to have to admit to being mislead for so long.



Actually Claudie I was in that box for many years. Then there was a glimmer of light shining through, and I attempted to see the outside and I liked it that much that I stayed outside.

You see- that analogy cuts both ways Sir. It can be applied evenly to purveyors of both philosophies. Strangely enough, usually only one part of the discussion is prepared to actually give it a go whilst very often the other side recommends that people do the very thing they would never ever do themselves. 

Ahh I wax philosophical - please excuse my musing gentlemen.


----------



## CBentre

Awesome thread, glad to see all of you coming together on my time away. I'm a bit surprised no one brought up 3rd dimensions or intergalactic travel. Possible bases on the far side of the moon, and those pesky pyramids on Mars. 
Yeah this is one of the best forums on the internet, keep up the good work.......im going now, don't no one throw a rock at me on my way out.


----------



## Harold_V

Claudie said:


> Some people have been in a box for so long, they cannot know that there is anything other than the box.
> If you are ever able to see a glimmer of light shinning through a crack in the box, I hope you will have the good sense to at least attempt to see the outside. I have a suspicion that, like so many others have done, you will tape that hole shut straight away so as not to have to admit to being mislead for so long.



Claudie, 
It takes guts beyond belief for you to post such a comment, especially when it describes you perfectly. You, sir, have taped over the tape on the cracks in the box, in an effort to avoid that which has been proven to be true, in favor of believing that which you wish to believe. 

No, I'm not angry. I'm just bewildered. 

Harold


----------



## shaftsinkerawc

Claudie, is there room in the box with you? Or are we supposed to stay in our own individual boxes?

I don't see where believing in a book written by fallible man is any different than believing long ages for the earth figured by a different fallible man are any different. They are both a belief system and therefore are both a religion.


----------



## Harold_V

shaftsinkerawc said:


> They are both a belief system and therefore are both a religion.


NO, they are NOT both a religion. That statement is idiotic. Are you next going to tell me that Newton got it wrong? 

Science bases opinions (I'll refrain from calling them facts) on observations, typically observations that are achieved through experiments, experiments that can be reproduced time and again, yielding the same results. To verify the veracity of information, the experiments are often conducted by other parties. We may err in interpreting the results, due in part to a lack of knowledge, but that in no way can be interpreted as a religion. 

By contrast, religion is based on belief set forth by others, and there is nothing to substantiate any of it as being true. There are no "tests" that can be conducted to substantiate long held beliefs, which is certainly not to advantage. As an agnostic, I tell you in simple terms; show me proof and I'll become a believer. Otherwise, count me out, as it is clear (at least to me) how religion is used.

There's not one person on this board, or anywhere, for that matter, who can provide even a shred of evidence that there is a creator. It's all based on (ancient) belief, and faith. If there was, there wouldn't be countless numbers of religions, as we would all be on the same page. You may have noticed that we're not. Anyone can choose to believe exactly what they wish, but having a firm conviction doesn't make it true. Science, by contrast, can present evidence. It's not the least bit uncommon for those who refuse to accept the evidence do so because such evidence is in direct conflict with that which they choose to believe, therefore it is discredited. That's not science--it's witchcraft. 

I am of the opinion that this thread is doing far more harm than it is good. It is displaying, for all to see, how stilted the thinking is of virtually all who have contributed (myself included), and will resolve none of the issues. Unless it takes a turn and becomes constructive, it's going to be locked, with the understanding that there will not be a similar discussion in the future, as it serves no purpose (after all---this board has a specific purpose---and this discussion isn't it).

To all concerned:
How do you want it? Do you want to stop posting on this subject, or should I close it so you can't? You can comply willingly, or not, but you will comply. 

Harold


----------



## g_axelsson

Wow! What an onslaught of new postings. I turn my back around for a while doing research and the thread totally explodes. 8) 

I wanted to give Geo a good answer so I have actually followed up on many of the references on that genesis website. If they ask a valid question they deserve a valid answer and not just "it must be wrong, contamination" without anything to base the statement on other than personal bias. What I mean with personal bias is that you have been told that it is like this. I wanted to know why it is like this.

Some of the references were only posters presented on creationist conferences, other looked as scientific articles but were publicized via various christian magazines and didn't look to have gone through a proper peer review. Some even included statements like "... and it agrees with the description of events in the bible."
This is what I would call doing "science" with an agenda.

The best reference I found (thank you Wikipedia) was of a discussion of building a neutrino detector with hydrocarbons low in C14. It turns out that even rocks deep in the ground actually have quite a lot C14. Some are produced in the same way as the atmospheric C14, by cosmic radiation (down to 300m depth). Some are produced by radioactive decay of uranium close to nitrate bearing rocks. Since many fossil deposits are made up of biological material, the nitrates in the original material turns into a source of C14. In the end, whatever source you check it turns out that in average it contains about 1% of the levels of C14 compared to atmospheric carbon and the levels vary quite a lot.
http://arxiv.org/pdf/hep-ex/0308025v2.pdf

Just as solar_plasma wrote, there are a lot of different radioactive clocks and other methods to use to verify the age of fossils.

And yes, I have indirectly seen the atoms of gold in one of my microscopes. By doing electron crystallography I could see the crystal structure by reflecting the electron beam on atoms in a 100 nm thick gold film. The viewing screen lit up like a star map, each dot representing a crystal position of gold atoms. ... and I just went :mrgreen: 

And no, I don't think we are likely to find out that we are only an atom in a larger universe. That idea is romantic but based on early atom models when we described it as a small planet system with the electrons orbiting the nucleus like planets around the sun. There are so much more we know now both about solar systems and atoms, models like that belongs in the cartoons like "Horton hears a Who!". 8) 

Göran

(edited : spelling)


----------



## g_axelsson

Harold_V said:


> I am of the opinion that this thread is doing far more harm than it is good. It is displaying, for all to see, how stilted the thinking is of virtually all who have contributed (myself included), and will resolve none of the issues. Unless it takes a turn and becomes constructive, it's going to be locked, with the understanding that there will not be a similar discussion in the future, as it serves no purpose (after all---this board has a specific purpose---and this discussion isn't it).
> 
> To all concerned:
> How do you want it? Do you want to stop posting on this subject, or should I close it so you can't? You can comply willingly, or not, but you will comply.
> 
> Harold


Just to clarify, my last post wasn't a reply on your post. It was already written and double checked when I saw it. I thought about it a while but decided to post it anyhow. I hope it was okay.

I have tried to keep the discussion on a civilized level, trying not to turn it into a shouting contest and although sometimes the discussion have come close to borderline it has remained on the right side. I've spent too much time on this discussion already, but in the end I learned something new about nuclear physics and C14 so it wasn't totally in vain.

I have also tried to show how science works for those that doesn't have the privilege of watching science done from the inside. There is so much more than the two-liner on the news about a new discovery, and very often the reporters gets it all wrong when they try to compress a complex issue into a few sentences.

Göran


----------



## solar_plasma

I learned a lot, I can úse in school lessons, both about dating methods, arguing against creationism, and as Göran mentioned, how "hard" natural science works in practice.

I hope, I have treated everybody and every point of view with respect, at least this has been my intention.

Thank you all!


----------



## Geo

This is the bar and grill. It is the place for discussions that are not about refining but just like any other topic, if it is disruptive or divisive, it wont go on for long. The forum rules are pretty simple, no religion, no politics, no hatred or hateful language, no profanity or vulgarness and no bashing on other members. We can discuss distance, thickness, height, weight, appearance, with impunity and can even discuss perceived appearance, ideas, notions, assumptions and conjectures with caution. As long as we can shake hands and agree that there are no hard feelings, we should be ok. Keep it civil, keep it clean, let everyone know that something is your opinion if it's something that can't be proven and stop saying it as a fact. Otherwise, it's just being argumentative.


----------



## Harold_V

g_axelsson said:


> Just to clarify, my last post wasn't a reply on your post. It was already written and double checked when I saw it. I thought about it a while but decided to post it anyhow. I hope it was okay.


More than okay, Göran, as it's based on science, not knee jerk reactions to science. 
To all:
I've tried to make it clear----do not post comments that are religion based, as they typically have nothing to do with reality. I'm not the least bit concerned about comments made on sites that have an agenda. They don't have a place on this board, as their sole purpose is to undo the hard work that has been accomplished by science. 

If information gleaned by science has errors within, time will erase those errors, but so long as man continues to hang on to religious dogma, there will be no progress in knowledge. That, in no way, serves mankind. 

Sorry. I realize I'm trying to steer the tone of this discussion, but that should come as no surprise. The rules are clear. No religious discussion------as religion has nothing to do with science, and in all cases, has no basis in truth. If it happens to parallel what is known, it's a coincidence. If we're to allow individuals to post based on their religious beliefs, we may as well include alchemy. I think you know that's not going to happen. 

I want readers to understand that I will respect their rights to the religion of their choice, but that goes away real fast when it gets presented on this board. Believe as you wish, but keep it to yourself. If you try to share it with the readers by way of posting references due to your religious convictions (that's not science), I'm going to delete the post. If you persist, I'm going to ban. I'm going to leave everything that has been posted thus far, so this thread continues to make sense. 

So then, if individuals can continue to post on this subject, based on science (such as Göran has done), I'm going to leave the thread open. 

Harold


----------



## Anonymous

Can I just say that I find myself in the position of completely agreeing with both the sentiment AND content of Harold's post. :shock: 8) 

Definitely common ground here - on a scientific basis of course!

Jon


----------



## CBentre

Geo said:


> The ones I find most provocative are the Quimbaya artifacts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quimbaya_artifacts Pre-Colombian artifacts. Little is known about how the makers of these artifacts received the inspiration to make such things. It has been suggested that they came from a cargo cult and was just making objects they had observed. The objects has been described as representing birds, insects or lizards. It's mind boggling that anyone can see these objects and not see clearly what they represent. I watched a special about them when I was a child and scaled models of them were not only aerodynamic, but were truly built to fly. Made almost a thousand years before powered flight, arguing what they are not is harder to explain than what they actually represent.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard to imagine that these artifacts came from the same continent as the Nazca lines in Peru that can only be seen in it's entirety from the air. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=nazca+lines&FORM=HDRSC2



Hey Geo there's a pretty good YouTube channel I've been following lately, search for (secure team 10) I'll be honest, some of the stuff is off the charts but some of it is pretty hard to debunk. I think you might enjoy it, I personally was interested in the video of NASA covering up a space craft approaching our son. Check it out and let me know what you think, they do try to produce genuine materials.


----------



## rickbb

CBentre said:


> Geo said:
> 
> 
> 
> The ones I find most provocative are the Quimbaya artifacts. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quimbaya_artifacts Pre-Colombian artifacts. Little is known about how the makers of these artifacts received the inspiration to make such things. It has been suggested that they came from a cargo cult and was just making objects they had observed. The objects has been described as representing birds, insects or lizards. It's mind boggling that anyone can see these objects and not see clearly what they represent. I watched a special about them when I was a child and scaled models of them were not only aerodynamic, but were truly built to fly. Made almost a thousand years before powered flight, arguing what they are not is harder to explain than what they actually represent.
> 
> 
> 
> Is it hard to imagine that these artifacts came from the same continent as the Nazca lines in Peru that can only be seen in it's entirety from the air. http://www.bing.com/images/search?q=nazca+lines&FORM=HDRSC2
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Hey Geo there's a pretty good YouTube channel I've been following lately, search for (secure team 10) I'll be honest, some of the stuff is off the charts but some of it is pretty hard to debunk. I think you might enjoy it, I personally was interested in the video of NASA covering up a space craft approaching our son. Check it out and let me know what you think, they do try to produce genuine materials.
Click to expand...



I too watched a show on some of these amazing pre-Columbian artifacts, it was a show called Nova on PBS. They actually went down south and found some old gentlemen in some villages sitting around making them in quantities to sell to tourists. 

If those were real pre-Columbian artifacts the scientific community would be all over them like a duck on a June bug, but since they aren't, those aren't.


----------



## macfixer01

That perennial piece of crap Al Gore is still up to no good.

http://blog.heartland.org/2014/09/al-gore-mentions-heartland-tells-11-falsehoods-in-just-35-seconds/


----------



## solar_plasma

I only say: emissions trading  

Incredible how much of pseudo science climate nonsense find its way into school books.


----------



## rickbb

solar_plasma said:


> I only say: emissions trading
> 
> Incredible how much of pseudo science climate nonsense find its way into school books.



Thats because school books are written by sales people who cater to lobbyists favorite politicians and at the same time have to pander to the extremist of the day that are screaming the loudest about whatever pet peeve of the day.

Saw a Frontline special on PBS once that completely destroyed any faith I ever had about the quality of school text books. They went into great detail on how books get written, edited and approved by school boards, really quite disgusting.


----------



## Geo

It's a crying shame that people are getting less education now than ever before. How can we keep up with the rest of the world when 80% of graduates can't read? http://news.yahoo.com/approximately-80-percent-nyc-high-school-grads-t-082112398.html Well, that is NYC for you. What would happen if eighth graders had to pass this? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2013%2F08%2F12%2F1912-eighth-grade-exam_n_3744163.html&ei=Sj4iVJDKIs6-ggSh7oCAAg&usg=AFQjCNF-USrxoiqVw_9d-cjDEoiKQgzDGw&sig2=a5DgqXo3x_8QG0roWlqCzQ&bvm=bv.75775273,d.eXY

Scroll down for the whole test. It will surprise a lot of people.


----------



## 4metals

It doesn't say that exactly, it says 80% (the national average is 60% by the way) cannot get into college without taking remedial courses. The requirement is for either English or Math or both. 

The benefit of a remedial "touch up class" is the fact that it does allow people who may not have gotten into college to go to college. The remedial courses do not count towards graduation but they do carry full tuition costs. Running a college is a business too. Would it be more impressive if higher percentage of students were able to transition right into postsecondary studies? Absolutely. But sometimes kids cannot focus on the work before they get a little older and wise up, would it be fair to say 'Nope you didn't learn it in the first 12 years you are SOL'? 

In my opinion its better that more kids are trying to go to college and if all it takes is brushing up on basic English or math skills to do that, well that's a win win in my book. I see that article and say that more kids are trying to get an education than before, they just need a little help. 

I will say the test posted in the second link exceeds what a good number of high school graduates can do today. Even if you take out the stuff we never ever use today like writing out in longhand the long decimals, it still makes you think.


----------



## 4metals

This is interesting 


http://www.npr.org/2015/10/10/44720...=iosnewsapp&utm_medium=Email&utm_campaign=app


----------



## solar_plasma

This test from 1912...half of it is something 8th graders still should be able to. But the other half is very specific knowledge, I would call dead knowledge. You could teach a way, they would be able to succeed in a test like this in only half a year, but why? They might know the names of every politician and still have no clue about politics. They need the technics how to gain knowledge and they need to get interested in topics - the rest will come of itself. In 1912 it was theoretically possible to know most of all human knowledge. Today you will need a lifetime to cover all knowledge of only one discipline and when you are done, most of it will be obsolete.

Nobody makes me believe the kids today are worse than they ever have been since the pyramides were built. But they have to learn more skills and have to know more than ever, and we use too few ressources for innovating and support the field of education. Education should be completely free. Students of whatever age should not need to job beside their studies. Classes should not be bigger than 21 pupils, better 15. Teachers should not teach more than 15 lesson per week. The best school materials should never be a question of money. The education of a teacher should take 8 years. Only the few best candidates should be allowed to become a teacher.

....oh, reminds a lot of the finnish school system
...oh well, the finnish school is obviously one of the best in the world 
....could it be there is a correlation? maybe even a causality?

But obviously someone in the system is not interested in this. Is there anyone who is profiting from a majority of weakly educated citizens? The elites? Maybe? Everyone who has power and does not want to share it? Maybe?


----------



## FrugalRefiner

Bjorn, I'm confused. What are you commenting about?

Dave


----------



## solar_plasma

Geo said:


> It's a crying shame that people are getting less education now than ever before. How can we keep up with the rest of the world when 80% of graduates can't read? http://news.yahoo.com/approximately-80-percent-nyc-high-school-grads-t-082112398.html Well, that is NYC for you. What would happen if eighth graders had to pass this? https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=2&cad=rja&uact=8&ved=0CCUQFjAB&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.huffingtonpost.com%2F2013%2F08%2F12%2F1912-eighth-grade-exam_n_3744163.html&ei=Sj4iVJDKIs6-ggSh7oCAAg&usg=AFQjCNF-USrxoiqVw_9d-cjDEoiKQgzDGw&sig2=a5DgqXo3x_8QG0roWlqCzQ&bvm=bv.75775273,d.eXY
> 
> Scroll down for the whole test. It will surprise a lot of people.



Hi Dave, I commented the second link.


----------



## Grelko

solar_plasma said:


> Geo said:
> 
> 
> 
> Hi Dave, I commented the second link.
Click to expand...


That's a good test right there. I only knew about 80% of the answers, and I read very often about everything that I can.

If you think about it though, when would you actually NEED most of that information in everyday life, besides basic math, being able to read, plus couple other things, depending on what you do with your life.

Alot of people probably can't add money in their head, let alone adding sales tax to it  . They just let the person at the cash register tell them how much something is, then they can use very basic addition and number skills to give the cashier the proper amount. 

Seriously though, when I go to the store and the cashier gives me the total, say it's $15.82, and I hand them a $20, before they even hit the button, I would have already said "I'll get $4.18 back in change". 9/10 of them just give me a blank stare and a couple have even said I was wrong and re-told me the total.

The more advanced technology becomes, the less people actually need to know. It's like the world is very slowly turning into the movie Idiocracy or Wall-E. Makes me wonder how many people know how to wash their clothes without a machine, or build a fire without a lighter or matches.

Then again, I never relied much on a calculator etc. Heck I still don't even have a cell phone, which is actually quite a shock to most people for some odd reason.

I shouldn't have opened this page...


----------



## solar_plasma

> how many people know how to wash their clothes without a machine, or build a fire without a lighter or matches.



Actually I always thought Survival should be a subject in school, containing: 
first aid, 
surviving in extreme climate, 
making and using primitve technologies, 
finding food and water in nature, 
disaster management


----------



## Grelko

solar_plasma said:


> Actually I always thought Survival should be a subject in school



When I was in school they taught us a little bit about that subject, but not much.

Imagine if something huge ever did happen, that basically sent the world back to the stone age, how many people would starve, while a VERY FEW of them, would go hmmm, I know how to...

Build a shelter, use first aid or even honey as a wound dressing for the antibacterial properties in it, make weapons, hunt, process meat, cook, sew, use tree bark or acorns to make leather from the tannins in them, boil tree sap to make glue, make rope, make wooden nails, there's vitamin C in grass, make danelion or pine needle tea, dry grass and 2 sticks or flint can make a fire, boil water, use the sun to evaporate the water from leaves to get water, or is this plant safe to eat. (I could talk about this for hours)

I didn't really want to come off sounding like the survivalist type though (too late :mrgreen: ) I actually just like to learn about everything that I can.

Hopefully some people are learning about this in all of the different survival videogames out there "winter, wilderness, with or without zombies or scavenging". There are a few very in-depth ones out there that I happen to play :lol:


----------



## FrugalRefiner

solar_plasma said:


> Hi Dave, I commented the second link.


Thanks Björn. I had only looked at the link 4metals provided about the critters. I hadn't scrolled up to Geo's post as it was over a year old.

Dave


----------



## rickbb

solar_plasma said:


> how many people know how to wash their clothes without a machine, or build a fire without a lighter or matches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I always thought Survival should be a subject in school, containing:
> first aid,
> surviving in extreme climate,
> making and using primitve technologies,
> finding food and water in nature,
> disaster management
Click to expand...


Used to be the kind of thing the Boy Scouts taught. At least that's where I leaned it.


----------



## solar_plasma

rickbb said:


> solar_plasma said:
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> how many people know how to wash their clothes without a machine, or build a fire without a lighter or matches.
> 
> 
> 
> 
> Actually I always thought Survival should be a subject in school, containing:
> first aid,
> surviving in extreme climate,
> making and using primitve technologies,
> finding food and water in nature,
> disaster management
> 
> Click to expand...
> 
> 
> Used to be the kind of thing the Boy Scouts taught. At least that's where I leaned it.
Click to expand...


Boy scouts were too much boy scout like in my eyes, when I was a kid. I had a handbook of the german army, the US Armed Forces Survival Manual by Boswell, all of Rüdiger Nehberg's books (the old baker who sailed in a nut shell from Africa to Brazil....the yanomani-man, you know), a forrest near my home and a 70km small river not too far - so, that was all I needed...the time in the german army was kind of put the finishing touch to it


----------



## Palladium

I to learned those country boys skills. My father and family was my influence and learning experiences. It's not the job of the government to teach my child anything, but the basic educational skills and even that should be the responsibility of an engaged parent! It's not the teachers job to teach my kids social norms and discipline, or anything else. I should have taught them those skills and THEN if they step out of line you have my permission to bust their ***. I'm a big supporter of teachers, but it's not their job or place to teach my children how to act and think, or anything else. Their job is hard enough as it is.

Here's something i pointed out to someone the other day. My kids get up and go to school which starts at 8am and get out at 3pm. Then they come home, do their chores, homework, supper, and bath before bed. Out of an average day your child is with his teacher 7 hours and with you maybe 4 hours total for you to be an influence in his or her's life. Those are strong numbers for the influence others will have in you child's life over you. Sometimes with the right person that can be a good thing. I still remember and admire my high school science teacher Mr Burns, god rest his soul. But get the wrong person or curriculum and it's a recipe for brainwashing your child to conform to social norms that may not always have you or your child's best interest at heart. Lets not even talk about outside influences like social media and these kids lost in their iphone's, wii's, ipads, and t.v. because their parents all want electronics to be their baby sitters so they don't have to be hassled with their kids. 

Kids are a handful!


----------



## Grelko

solar_plasma said:


> I had a handbook of the german army, the US Armed Forces Survival Manual by Boswell, all of Rüdiger Nehberg's books (the old baker who sailed in a nut shell from Africa to Brazil....the yanomani-man, you know), a forrest near my home and a 70km small river not too far - so, that was all I needed...the time in the german army was kind of put the finishing touch to it



I bet those books were alot of fun to read. The one that I've been slowly going through "besides Hokes and others on here", is the Peterson Field Guides "Edible Wild Plants" for Eastern/Central North America. I have alot of other books on re-building furniture, carpentry, electrical, mechanics, chemistry (which I should read to help me here) plus others.

I grew up mostly playing out in the woods building treehouses etc for years. I was in boy scouts for a couple years also. My grandparents were the "old school" farmers that basically made everything on their own, canning foods etc. My parents are the "jack of all trades" type, so I learned plumbing, electrical, cars, gardening, sewing and other stuff from them.


----------



## UncleBenBen

Times have definitely changed for most kids. I gew up in the hills and hollers of middle Tennessee and was always in the woods. I couldn't imagine growing up indoors playing video games and such and not gaining the education nature provided for me.

From the ages of 9 or 10 and up our parents thought nothing of my little brother, our buddy, and myself staying gone for days at a time. They knew we were in the woods and could handle it. I doubt many kids could or even would do that any more.

Some basic survival should definitely be taught in school, though I doubt it ever will. The year I graduated high school, I loaded a good back pack and hit the woods. Stayed gone for 2 and 1/2 months. Just to make sure I could. Some of the best times of my life!

I tell that to kids now and they look at me like I'm crazy. One of my sons friends actually asked how much money I took with me to buy food with! Maybe I am a little crazy, but I wouldn't trade all that time in the woods for all the gold in the world!


----------



## Grelko

Palladium said:


> it's not their job or place to teach my children how to act and think, or anything else. Their job is hard enough as it is.



I don't have any kids yet and I agree with this 100%. I have a small story to add.

A teacher was telling some parents that their kid was acting up in class. The teacher wanted them go to a psychiatrist get their kid put on medication. 

I'm thinking, that the little guy is only like 8 years old, let him be a kid, of course he's going to act up, he barely even knows what being alive is, let alone all the rules in life. 

The real story is, that the little guy was actually me when I was back in 2nd grade and the teacher said I was the class clown. My parents were real upset when the teacher said that I needed to be medicated. Even after all this time I still never "grew up". I can act like it when I need to, but If you would see me at the beach, I'd probably be sitting there building a sand castle or looking at rocks. I was actually at Goodwill yesterday, playing around with a plastic sword that I found on the shelf :lol: I found a microscope there also 8) 

When I have kids someday, NO ONE is going to tell me how I should raise them.




UncleBenBen said:


> I tell that to kids now and they look at me like I'm crazy. One of my sons friends actually asked how much money I took with me to buy food with!



This got me laughing for a couple minutes :lol:

The way the world is now, is SO much different than it used to be.


----------



## solar_plasma

The main problem is, that most countries do not prioritize the education sector, instead they use the money to nurse the war industry and the banksters.

The best methods, the best education experts and the best material should never be a question of money. Further the education of teachers is much to short, mostly around 4 years. I think 8 years would suffice. Classes should be really small. The work of teachers is no way easier than the work of a medical doctor, if done perfectly, but the education only lasts half as long. A study showed, that teaching is as stressing as the work of fighter pilots and flight controllers - evidenced on hard measurable data. 

Our children are the best and most valuable we have, why in world do we not treat them like this, when it comes to the sector that covers more time with them than their own family.


----------



## butcher

If people are educated they can be hard to control.
They may be able to think for themselves and see through the smoke and mirrors.
Just my opinion on our education systems.


----------



## UncleBenBen

I think you just nailed it Butcher! (glad you enjoyed the chuckle! It made me kind of sad that a 16 year old could be so clueless!)

My boy just graduated from high school this past year. The curriculum I saw being taught from about his 6th grade year on was nothing short of pathetic. It was painfully obvious to me that it was all designed in a way that would guarantee that even the most illiterate, lazy kids would pass.

That in turn would skew the numbers and make it appear that the schools were doing a lot better than they actually were. And why?

Money. The better the test scores "appeared" the more money the schools could bring in. Despite the fact that the kids haven't learned squat.

It gets my blood pressure up to think that when I was in high school in the 90s the US was near the top in the world in public education. Now we've slid to the bottom in such a short tme. All thanks to our corporate school systems and the love of fake money.


----------



## Barren Realms 007

UncleBenBen said:


> I think you just nailed it Butcher! (glad you enjoyed the chuckle! It made me kind of sad that a 16 year old could be so clueless!)
> 
> My boy just graduated from high school this past year. The curriculum I saw being taught from about his 6th grade year on was nothing short of pathetic. It was painfully obvious to me that it was all designed in a way that would guarantee that even the most illiterate, lazy kids would pass.
> 
> That in turn would skew the numbers and make it appear that the schools were doing a lot better than they actually were. And why?
> 
> Money. The better the test scores "appeared" the more money the schools could bring in. Despite the fact that the kids haven't learned squat.
> 
> It gets my blood pressure up to think that when I was in high school in the 90s the US was near the top in the world in public education. Now we've slid to the bottom in such a short tme. All thanks to our corporate school systems and the love of fake money.



You can thank the public school system for that.


----------



## rickbb

Barren Realms 007 said:


> You can thank the public school system for that.



Yes, you can thank all the top down required tests and other hoops schools are required to jump through to keep their funding, (federal and state levels). Instead of learning something, just teach them the min needed to pass those tests. 

One of the reasons my daughter gave up teaching, she wasn't allowed to teach the subject, she had to teach the tests to keep the politicians off her back.


----------



## Grelko

UncleBenBen said:


> I think you just nailed it Butcher! (glad you enjoyed the chuckle! It made me kind of sad that a 16 year old could be so clueless!)
> 
> My boy just graduated from high school this past year. The curriculum I saw being taught from about his 6th grade year on was nothing short of pathetic. It was painfully obvious to me that it was all designed in a way that would guarantee that even the most illiterate, lazy kids would pass.
> 
> That in turn would skew the numbers and make it appear that the schools were doing a lot better than they actually were. And why?
> 
> Money. The better the test scores "appeared" the more money the schools could bring in. Despite the fact that the kids haven't learned squat.
> 
> It gets my blood pressure up to think that when I was in high school in the 90s the US was near the top in the world in public education. Now we've slid to the bottom in such a short tme. All thanks to our corporate school systems and the love of fake money.




This would be the part of the thread where I should really stop typing, before I accidently get into some "conspiracy theory" debate and probably get a warning :lol: 

But on that note, did you happen to notice, that ever since we've started talking about the school systems, that there is a random google ad, that pops up at the bottom about "homework help" and the name of the other member that just so happens to be in here the same time I am. :lol: :mrgreen:


----------



## Palladium

I know who that is! :mrgreen:


----------

