• We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
  • The forum will be down for about an hour this weekend for maintenance. I apologize for the inconvenience.
  • If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
  • Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.

Worst disaster in U.S. History

K

KYGlockster

Activist Member
Joined
Dec 9, 2010
Messages
1,842
Location
Ashland, KY
I must say, obama is absolutely turning out to be one of the worst presidents with no respect for our constitution. First we have cash for clunkers, federal govt. Spending tax payer dollars to by automobiles for outrageous prices, not to mention most of these vehicles were setting in tall weeds for years until the owners heard they could get 100 times what they were worth. Then we have big business bail-out. Once again they spend our hard earned money to bail out the auto industry, and assured us the money would be recovered!?!? Then we say well we should bail out these large financial institutions as well, because they deserve our tax dollars, after all they gotta give their ceo's million dollar blue collar tax bonuses, and buy new corporate jets. Then Obama says screw the constitution, this isn't the great country most Americans believe it is, and the document that supports it isn't worth the ink it was written with and forces his beliefs on us, then says if you don't buy what I tell you to, then I'll fine you for it, just like the mob boss he is. (health care). We have a debt ceiling of 14.6 trillion dollars and he wants it raised???!!!! He says if it isn't raised that our country will be back in the ice age? Whats gonna happen if we raise the amount of debt our country can have? Our children are gonna be left with a country with no funds to sustain itself then we will certainly be back in the old days not to mention at war with all the countries we owe, but can't afford to pay!!! Un-employment was between 5-6 percent when he took office, now it almost double that at 9.6. And was in double digits for awhile, and almost there again. And who does he blame? Republicans of course, u don't hear him placing it where it belongs, because that wouldn't get him re elected if he took it like a man and said I was wrong. This is y he is one of the worst presidents of our time and ever.
 
K

Kirbinator

Regular Member
Joined
Jan 22, 2010
Messages
903
Location
Middle of the map, Alabama
Dreamer said:
I am the only person in the world that thinks e might need to re-evaluate our propensity to build EVERY SINGLE nuclear power plant on the planet within 50 miles of a major fault line, and about 75% of them are ALSO in flood plains or tsunami zones?

It's almost like these insane locations for nuclear power plants were chosen on purpose...

Just sayin'...
Click to expand...

Something about proximity to large bodies of water for cooling... or something.
 
Dreamer

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
I've had three different nuclear engineers (one who worked for NIST) tell me strictly "off the record", that many nuclear engineers actually believe that they "work better" when placed on or near fault lines. They say the ones that are placed in locations remote from fault lines (mostly at research universities) are nowhere near as efficient. They believe it has something to do with the "fluxes in the earth's electromagnetic fields"...

In other words, nuclear engineers believe that ley lines make nuclear reactors more efficient.

But they will never say that "on the record"...

BTW, the New Madrid Fault Line is only near a river--not an ocean--and it has nearly 30% of the commercial nuclear reactors in the US along it's path, so the "proximity to large bodies of water" idea doesn't really pan out.
 
riverrat10k

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
Dreamer said:
Back to the OP...

The REAL story behind most of these over-capacity midwestern dams isn't that they are sitting at over their designed capacity now, after weeks of heavy rains.

The REAL story is that they KNEW they had a record snowfall last winter. They had forecasts for above-average rainfall weeks ahead of time this summer. And yet they STILL let these dams sit at near-capacity all spring, rather letting some of the spring runoff water through the dams in a controlled manner, to lower the water levels, and increase their capacity for the impending late-spring and early-summer snow runoff and rains.

Rather than drop the retained water levels to give them the capacity to hold excess rain and snow runoff and control flooding (like they were DESIGNED to do), these dames were allowed to be essentially "topped off" long BEFORE the heavy runoff season started, pretty much GUARANTEEING that they would actually CAUSE flooding--perhaps catastrophic floods if these dams fail...

But to even suggest that anyone in the government might be considering CAUSING a disaster--to clear the land, kill and displace tens of thousands of people, and enable an even further expansion of "emergency powers"--would be a "conspiracy theory", so I won't go there... :uhoh:

Just sayin'...
Click to expand...


Cite for any of this? I guess I could go the USGS water site and check the levels for the last few months. If they have been running high for months, it would discredit your statement. Other than the "creasting a disaster" scenario, was there some other justification for holding lake/river levels high?
 
Last edited:
riverrat10k

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
Dreamer, just an unscientific spot-check...

From the USGS website:

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/mt/nwis/uv?cb_00065=on&format=gif_default&period=120&site_no=06132000

Would take a little more research to determine an intentional hold-back.

Interestingly, this page does not show the same data I can get on my local river. My graph has a "median daily dishcharge" data point allowing you to compare the days discharge as a deviation from a historical average. Useful for me, sometimes.

If Dreamer is correct, a similar graph for this gauging station would possibly show below average discharges earlier in the year, in his opinion done on purpose. Wasn't it cold this year? How does ice-up affect the realeases from this dam?

Looking at the other guages in the upper midwest and west, it looks like the rivers have been running above average or high since ice-out.
 
riverrat10k

riverrat10k

Regular Member
Joined
Aug 24, 2008
Messages
1,472
Location
on a rock in the james river
OK, found this data....

but it cuts off in May?

http://waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/dv?c...011-07-09&site_no=06132000&referred_module=sw

They didn't start dumping water until the end of April, and backed it off at the end of May, plus one of the linked articles states they are currently dumping 65Kcfs, so they have not been emergency dumping all spring, apparently.

Navigation, flood control, irrigation and drinking water, power generation, environmental considerations, ice--lots of reasons to release or hold back water. Snowpack forecasts would surely drive some of these choices.
 
Last edited:
Dreamer

Dreamer

Regular Member
Joined
Sep 23, 2009
Messages
5,360
Location
Grennsboro NC
riverrat10k said:
Wasn't it cold this year? How does ice-up affect the realeases from this dam?
Click to expand...


Oh, no, everyone "knows" that it was actually WARMER this past winter, and has been getting steadily warmer since the late 1800's. (well, except for the marked drop in mean temperatures over the last decade or so, but that's just an "anomaly" and doesn't mean anything statistically).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

So there couldn't have possibly been increased ice or snow this past winter. Anyone who says temperatures are actually falling is just a "Global Warming Denier", and a tin-foil-hat Conspiracy Theorist...

<sarcasm OFF>
 
Last edited:
PrayingForWar

PrayingForWar

Founder's Club Member
Joined
Sep 9, 2007
Messages
1,701
Location
The Real World.
Dreamer said:
Oh, no, everyone "knows" that it was actually WARMER this past winter, and has been getting steadily warmer since the late 1800's. (well, except for the marked drop in mean temperatures over the last decade or so, but that's just an "anomaly" and doesn't mean anything statistically).

http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/recenttc.html

So there couldn't have possibly been increased ice or snow this past winter. Anyone who says temperatures are actually falling is just a "Global Warming Denier", and a tin-foil-hat Conspiracy Theorist...

<sarcasm OFF>
Click to expand...
I consider global warming alarmists to be no more lucid that "tin foil hat conspiracy theorists". Both have a habit of believeing in theories that resulted from backwards thinking. That is; drawing a conclusion and devising the "how" using only the data or facts that support their theories and promoting them with a religious devotion. The hallmark of marxist "thought".
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top